Change in ability score importance


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
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

Sorry! I know this is a problem for you, which is why I checked really since I'm lucky enough to have my books already. But I thought it would be best to have accurate info!

I mean, the book also says adventurers packs are 2 bulk and apparently they're already errata'd to be 1 bulk so who knows what the bulk will end up being? *shrugs*


Ngodrup wrote:
graystone wrote:
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

Sorry! I know this is a problem for you, which is why I checked really since I'm lucky enough to have my books already. But I thought it would be best to have accurate info!

I mean, the book also says adventurers packs are 2 bulk and apparently they're already errata'd to be 1 bulk so who knows what the bulk will end up being? *shrugs*

???

The book isn't even out and it's already got errata? Or is this just what they've said is slated for the first errata entry, when they finally issue it?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:
graystone wrote:
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

Sorry! I know this is a problem for you, which is why I checked really since I'm lucky enough to have my books already. But I thought it would be best to have accurate info!

I mean, the book also says adventurers packs are 2 bulk and apparently they're already errata'd to be 1 bulk so who knows what the bulk will end up being? *shrugs*

???

The book isn't even out and it's already got errata? Or is this just what they've said is slated for the first errata entry, when they finally issue it?

Day One DLC


I think that more falls under the heading of a typo correction than a full errata.

Where Typo to me means they wrote the wrong thing in at least one place. It may be that adventures packs are listed as 1 bulk elsewhere.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
The book isn't even out and it's already got errata? Or is this just what they've said is slated for the first errata entry, when they finally issue it?

All books that have errata ever (and that's most books), should have it the first day. Indeed, the faster such errors caught the better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, typos and errata don't matter to me. I would accept a bundle of hand-written rules on bar napkin paper if the underlying system is a good fit for my gaming needs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yup, I had incorrect information.

Also, alchemists are definitely overweighted if you use the actual weights of things. The Alchemist's Kit claims to weigh 4.6B, but if you add up the actual weight of everything that comes in it (and account for Adventuerer's Pack being wrong) it seems to actually be 5.5B, not counting the formula book, which means Alchemists have a "base weight" of 6.5B - that's just silly.

Personally I will be house ruling the formula book to be L, at the very least. Probably also knock 1B off the alchemist's tools, which will bring the "base weight" back down to 4.6B.

EDIT: Upon doing the numbers yet again, it looks like the 4.6 for the Alchemist's kit is at least close to correct (I keep coming up with 4.5 instead), but still doesn't account for the 1B formula book.

5.6B still seems way too high for the baseline weight of a class that usually doesn't care about Strength - that means that Str 8 alchemists are encumbered no matter what and Str 10 alchemists are encumbered if they make more than one batch of anything.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't quite say alchemists don't care about weight. Part of the alchemist concept is a focus on physical gear, and having lots of it.

You don't have an obvious explicit class mechanic relating to strength, like a fighter who uses lots of non-finesse weapons. It's more covert. If you don't put some points into strength you have hard choices to make about equipment.

I'm not against that in principle, but I'm not convinced it's perfectly calibrated. I think the book could have been lighter and maybe the alchemist tools as well, say L and 1, so that your base price for even playing an alchemist is 1.1 bulk. That's before you get into the stuff everyone else also needs, like armor and weapons.

I think it's fine for example, if it's hard to both have lower strength (say, halfling with 8) and have problems if you also carry a healer's kit. You have more than minimal equipment ambitions? Then you need to invest in bulk capacity.

So I think just tuning it slightly would be enough. If the next book has a "field formala book" that weighs only L, we're already getting closer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
I wouldn't quite say alchemists don't care about weight. Part of the alchemist concept is a focus on physical gear, and having lots of it.

This is true, I agree. But I think if the required bulk for an alchemist is as high as this, strength should've been noted as a secondary ability score for PF2 Alchemists in the class breakdown page and Alchemist part of the class chapter, and if I remember correctly, it wasn't.

If any of my players want to play an alchemist in one of my home games, I will consider houseruling the book as L bulk, as mentioned by others on the thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I think it's fine for example, if it's hard to both have lower strength (say, halfling with 8) and have problems if you also carry a healer's kit. You have more than minimal equipment ambitions? Then you need to invest in bulk capacity.

As it stands right now the 8 strength alchemist is overencumbered with just their basic kit and a 10 strength alchemist only has enough room to carry 3 alchemical items at a time on top of that.

Even a 12 strength alchemist is nearly at their limit if they pick up that healer's kit or a crossbow and can't carry both.

While I like having carrying capacity matter more and I agree alchemists are known for carrying stuff, I don't think the concept of the potionslinger being a bit on the weak side is all that athematic and right now even if you strip the alchemist down to just their armor, kit and book someone with 8 strength only has 9 light to play around with.

Might be good to ditch the armor too I guess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I think it's fine for example, if it's hard to both have lower strength (say, halfling with 8) and have problems if you also carry a healer's kit. You have more than minimal equipment ambitions? Then you need to invest in bulk capacity.

As it stands right now the 8 strength alchemist is overencumbered with just their basic kit and a 10 strength alchemist only has enough room to carry 3 alchemical items at a time on top of that.

Even a 12 strength alchemist is nearly at their limit if they pick up that healer's kit or a crossbow and can't carry both.

While I like having carrying capacity matter more and I agree alchemists are known for carrying stuff, I don't think the concept of the potionslinger being a bit on the weak side is all that athematic and right now even if you strip the alchemist down to just their armor, kit and book someone with 8 strength only has 9 light to play around with.

Might be good to ditch the armor too I guess.

Rather than change the weight of these items, I might consider a class ability that allows an alchemist who carries a alchemy kit via a bandoleer or satchel, designed to be quick access. They can treat that one kit as one bulk less, due to their passion for it. Likewise, you could allow Alchemists and Wizards to potentially treat a single Formula Book or Spell book they are carrying (not more than one) as L, for likewise reason, having learned how to carry such an important book to themselves.

The barbarian, or fighter of the party would complain how big and bulky the spellbook or formula book is, despite their perhaps having bulk to spare in their carrying capacity, but the Wizard or Alchemist would hardly complain about their heavy tools they carry as they cling to them as if they were solid gold.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's a good idea, but unfortunately, some people who call that a feat tax, or find some other way to deride it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
That's a good idea, but unfortunately, some people who call that a feat tax, or find some other way to deride it.

it's not a tax if it's free (like a level 1 class ability that's just added in the base alchemist kit)

it IS a tax if you have to pay for it in skill/class feats

as it stands, the only class that uses an offstat as its attack stat (casters now attack with casting stat, martials attack with their primary stat, alchemists attack with Dex and not Int) is now also forced on a 3rd offstat just to carry its bare necessities.

having 5.5+ bulk as the starting ground for just carrying your basic stuff is a terrible design on a class that already is forced to dump every levelup into a secondary stat already just to be able to hit stuff.

having to pump 3 different stats just to work, not even counting Con which is basically equally important for all characters, is not a "feature" it's a "bug".

we are talking character design being streamlined at this point into one single stat array with 0 flexibility just to meet design prerequisites.


shroudb wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
That's a good idea, but unfortunately, some people who call that a feat tax, or find some other way to deride it.

it's not a tax if it's free (like a level 1 class ability that's just added in the base alchemist kit)

it IS a tax if you have to pay for it in skill/class feats

as it stands, the only class that uses an offstat as its attack stat (casters now attack with casting stat, martials attack with their primary stat, alchemists attack with Dex and not Int) is now also forced on a 3rd offstat just to carry its bare necessities.

having 5.5+ bulk as the starting ground for just carrying your basic stuff is a terrible design on a class that already is forced to dump every levelup into a secondary stat already just to be able to hit stuff.

having to pump 3 different stats just to work, not even counting Con which is basically equally important for all characters, is not a "feature" it's a "bug".

we are talking character design being streamlined at this point into one single stat array with 0 flexibility just to meet design prerequisites.

Again though.

4 bulk is the alchemist starting kit. Meaning an 8 str character can do it and even brew potions.

5 bulk is minimun for your medically inclined.

6 bulk gives more wiggle room.

12... in a system like pf2 is not a large investment in a stat.

Don't like encumberance? Petition a GM not to use it, but this isn't overly punishing to alchemists as is.
You get 9 +2 selections after all (not counting the optional flaw exchange)

So 12, 16, 12, 18, 10, 10 is totally doable and gives 6 bulk 9L to play with.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

4 bulk is only the starting kit for a naked alchemist.

If you buy the "alchemist kit" from the core rulebook, you are starting at 5.6 bulk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
So 12, 16, 12, 18, 10, 10 is totally doable and gives 6 bulk 9L to play with.

It being doable doesn't have anything to do with it being a tax that other classes don't have. As such, it sure DOES feel "overly punishing to alchemists as is."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Encumbered Alchemist does sound like pushing a concept on a Class and shackling them together, like Heavy Armor Paladin in the playtest.

No reason for such shackles in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
So 12, 16, 12, 18, 10, 10 is totally doable and gives 6 bulk 9L to play with.
It being doable doesn't have anything to do with it being a tax that other classes don't have. As such, it sure DOES feel "overly punishing to alchemists as is."

On top of that, that stat array is basically the only one you would ever want as an alchemist. Anything else would be clearly suboptimal. While I'm all for optimization, I do like classes to be able to optimize in a few different ways based on goals, not just one single stat array that everyone needs to pick to be functional.


sherlock1701 wrote:
graystone wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
So 12, 16, 12, 18, 10, 10 is totally doable and gives 6 bulk 9L to play with.
It being doable doesn't have anything to do with it being a tax that other classes don't have. As such, it sure DOES feel "overly punishing to alchemists as is."
On top of that, that stat array is basically the only one you would ever want as an alchemist. Anything else would be clearly suboptimal. While I'm all for optimization, I do like classes to be able to optimize in a few different ways based on goals, not just one single stat array that everyone needs to pick to be functional.

Why? 10 works fine, 12 is an exception, you can dump one by 2 and have an increase as well.

It isn't like it is stopping another stat from hitting 14. Or even 12 if you accept 10.

You can arange the other stats however you want (well except for the +2 from int) there are heaps of permutations if you aren't going for the optimal build maxed dex+int approach.

Remember, mules, party members, bags of holding and your 4 stats you can increase at level 4. These are other options.

I can see why it is a minor inconvenience, but choosing it as the posterboy for the "overly" taxing ability is lunacy.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
graystone wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
So 12, 16, 12, 18, 10, 10 is totally doable and gives 6 bulk 9L to play with.
It being doable doesn't have anything to do with it being a tax that other classes don't have. As such, it sure DOES feel "overly punishing to alchemists as is."
On top of that, that stat array is basically the only one you would ever want as an alchemist. Anything else would be clearly suboptimal. While I'm all for optimization, I do like classes to be able to optimize in a few different ways based on goals, not just one single stat array that everyone needs to pick to be functional.

Why? 10 works fine, 12 is an exception, you can dump one by 2 and have an increase as well.

you can arange the other stats however you want (well except for the +2 from int) there are heaps of permutations if you aren't going for the optimal build maxed dex+int approach.

Sherlock doesn't seem to accept anything less than absolute combat/numbers optimization as valid. (Not a jab at them, simply something I've noticed across several threads they've taken part in.)


Alyran wrote:
Sherlock doesn't seem to accept anything less than absolute combat/numbers optimization as valid. (Not a jab at them, simply something I've noticed across several threads they've taken part in.)

I mean, the only impact on combat would be one less perception mod... and since both 8 and 10 are doable that is a sacrifice someone can take.

I am a little more sympathetic to the dex for atk element (althogh I need to go through the formulae for bombs propperly to see how it may have been balanced). But the way it is being talked about is like it is unplayable and a huge inconvenience.

Heck I just remembered the athletics skill feat, so 6 bulk is still doable at 10 str. 8 gets tight sure, but it should?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Why? 10 works fine, 12 is an exception, you can dump one by 2 and have an increase as well.

If it works for you, great. For me though, it doesn't work.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Remember, mules, party members, bags of holding and your 4 stats you can increase at level 4. These are other options.

Nifty, optional taxes are still taxes: I shouldn't HAVE to buy a mule or feat or buy non-primary/secondary/ternary stat to walk around with what the class requires [armor, weapons and gear to use class abilities]. Bags of holding make the matter worse as it ADDS bulk [your kits, armor and weapons have to be out to use].

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I can see why it is a minor inconvenience, but choosing it as the posterboy for the "overly" taxing ability is lunacy.

Being encumbered with only your basics of armor, weapon and needed gear is more than "a minor inconvenience" IMO.

The bottom line is, I don't mind having to spend resources to carry around EXTRA things: when I have to do so to carry around required things I'm of the opinion that something's wrong with the numbers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
8 gets tight sure, but it should?

Tight, yes. Encumbered with basic gear if you don't spend a feat seems like a bit much though, at least to me.

6 bulk at 10 strength isn't even that great when we're talking about a 4.6 bulk kit and a 1 bulk formula book. That gives the alchemist with the feat all of 1 bulk of wiggle room. That's certainly workable, but it means you can't really pick up any extra equipment and even just grabbing a slightly bigger weapon puts you in the danger zone.


Seems like house ruling bulk 1 or 2 less for the alchemist kit would fix the problem.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
mrspaghetti wrote:
Seems like house ruling bulk 1 or 2 less for the alchemist kit would fix the problem.

True but that would not work in PFS and will not fly in most PBP, unless you negotiate it every time, thus sounding like a special snowflake.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mrspaghetti wrote:
Seems like house ruling bulk 1 or 2 less for the alchemist kit would fix the problem.

we're not asking for more.

just give us 1-2 bulk to "work with".

making the "alchemy kit" equal to a component pouch is enough. After all, "component pouch" is never a single pouch, but a whole array of pockets and small pouches each individually holding each of your limitless components used in 100 different spells, and each in such an accessible spot that you can instantly identify and grab that.

but apparently wizards are 100% more efficient in their packing space than alchemists, since both grab components in 2 seconds, but one has stored them in such a way that is as cumbersome as a full 2 meter longbow, and the other is as cumbersome as a single vial.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
That's a good idea, but unfortunately, some people who call that a feat tax, or find some other way to deride it.

it's not a tax if it's free (like a level 1 class ability that's just added in the base alchemist kit)

it IS a tax if you have to pay for it in skill/class feats

as it stands, the only class that uses an offstat as its attack stat (casters now attack with casting stat, martials attack with their primary stat, alchemists attack with Dex and not Int) is now also forced on a 3rd offstat just to carry its bare necessities.

having 5.5+ bulk as the starting ground for just carrying your basic stuff is a terrible design on a class that already is forced to dump every levelup into a secondary stat already just to be able to hit stuff.

having to pump 3 different stats just to work, not even counting Con which is basically equally important for all characters, is not a "feature" it's a "bug".

we are talking character design being streamlined at this point into one single stat array with 0 flexibility just to meet design prerequisites.

Again though.

4 bulk is the alchemist starting kit. Meaning an 8 str character can do it and even brew potions.

5 bulk is minimun for your medically inclined.

6 bulk gives more wiggle room.

12... in a system like pf2 is not a large investment in a stat.

Don't like encumberance? Petition a GM not to use it, but this isn't overly punishing to alchemists as is.
You get 9 +2 selections after all (not counting the optional flaw exchange)

So 12, 16, 12, 18, 10, 10 is totally doable and gives 6 bulk 9L to play with.

no, not really.

starting bulk is closer to 5.5

the "kit" ironically doesn't even include the damned formula book, so at "4 bulk and you're fine" you don't even HAVE abilities, you're a peasant.

again:

2 for kit, 1 for book, 1 for a weapon (do remember that you have no spamable "cantrips" so a weapon is as core to any build as say a weapon is to a rogue), 1 for an armor, and around 0.5 for even 1/3rd of your extracts

this already assumes you start the combat by dropping your backpack in the ground, which is problematic of it's own and it's the ONLY class required to do so, because the backpack, even with the bare minimum adventuring supplies is another bulk.

and that's BEFORE we include medicine kits for healer alchemists, who are a full archetype of the class.

so, we really are talking about starting bulk of 6.5-7.5 with 5.5-6.5 of that being your "combat gear".

p.s. thank you for providing a stat array PROVING our point that bulk is a pure TAX since it disallows any sort of customizability on your starting stats, since you're forced into 16 dex, 18 int, and 12 strength in all and every alchemist


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
p.s. thank you for providing a stat array PROVING our point that bulk is a pure TAX since it disallows any sort of customizability on your starting stats, since you're forced into 16 dex, 18 int, and 12 strength in all and every alchemist

How are you forced into taking an 18 in your main stat? Sure it's useful, but a 16 also works just fine.


Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.

But Int isn't the alchemist's only important stat. Don't you use your Dex for your bomb to-hit rolls? And if you aren't a bomber, probably for your backup weapon as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Which is why some are seeing the required Str being at least 10 for bare minimum items (assuming no armor) as a tax?)


Temperans wrote:
(Which is why some are seeing the required Str being at least 10 for bare minimum items (assuming no armor) as a tax?)

I fundamentally don't accept being punished for having an 8 in a stat as an argument that bumping that to 10 is a tax.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.

What do alchemists use int for? As far as I'm aware, their attack rolls use either dex or str. And that is probably the most common d20 roll. So if you want to optimize that, why not go for 18 dex instead of int?

Sure a 16 in your main stat means you're 5% less likely to succeed at something compared to someone with an 18. But it also means you're 5% more likely to succeed at something else. You can always optimize and go for an 18 if you want. But if an 18 was required, then paizo would have had everyone start with an 18 in their main stat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists use Int for class DCs, number of infused reagents (class level + Int mod), and the effects of a few class feats. Alchemists can't go 18 Dex because you can only get a starting 18 in your class's key ability, which is Intelligence for alchemists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Red Metal wrote:
Alchemists use Int for class DCs, number of infused reagents (class level + Int mod), and the effects of a few class feats. Alchemists can't go 18 Dex because you can only get a starting 18 in your class's key ability, which is Intelligence for alchemists.

Also of note, if you make your items at the start of the day, it's x2 or x3 per reagent so it's a bigger drop in usable items for lowered Int.

Alyran wrote:
Temperans wrote:
(Which is why some are seeing the required Str being at least 10 for bare minimum items (assuming no armor) as a tax?)
I fundamentally don't accept being punished for having an 8 in a stat as an argument that bumping that to 10 is a tax.

No it's having to raise it from 10 to 12 that's a tax: raising it from 8 to 10 just means you go from encumbered to slightly less encumbered... :P

Liberty's Edge

Some stuff needs to be adjusted on Alchemist item Bulk, since they actually wind up needing 5.6, and that's at least a full Bulk too much.

sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.

I'm not sure I agree that 5% is an impossible deficit.

But even if I did, Int on an Alchemist is something of an exception to this. They don't actually use it as an attack stat.

Liberty's Edge

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

It really feels that because Alchemist branched in unexplored territory in PF2 it did not benefit from the useful improvements for base play that casters now enjoy. And that another iteration for improved ease of play was lacking.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.

If starting with a 16 is that big of a penalty then the Alchemist is already dead out the door since it's impossible to start with an 18 in your attack stat (mutagen Alchemists need strength, bombers need dex).


Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.
If starting with a 16 is that big of a penalty then the Alchemist is already dead out the door since it's impossible to start with an 18 in your attack stat (mutagen Alchemists need strength, bombers need dex).

I'm not seeing much appeal in the class from an offensive perspective, seems best suited as a heal/buff bot. Maybe could make poisons for allies? You could substitute them with a shopping trip though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really? I have zero faith in the Alchemist as a healer due to an inability to react to emergencies. The Alchemist is only equal to or better than a Cleric when things are going well, when the Fighter gets dropped instantly by an unfortunate crit you really need your healer to be able to get him right back up. Having the Alchemist run up and administer a potion is inefficient and can even make the situation worse, a Cleric or Bard healer is far better at responding to that situation.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists have fine offense by all accounts. Mutagens can give them better to-hit buffs than non-Alchemists generally get, and many Bombs do damage even on a miss or impose good debuffs, or both.

I think dismissing them on offense because they lack Dex 18 is a terrible mistake.

As for support, evidence suggests Alchemists make excellent support characters via mutagens and condition removal, plus out of combat healing. In terms of in-combat healing, they're not as good as a spellcaster, but that doesn't make them bad, just not as good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist healing is fine if that's your secondary goal, I agree, but a healer that's least effective when healing is most necessary does not a good healer make. If you want your Alchemist to fulfill a supporting role you might be better off with a more wizardly "preventing the damage from occurring in the first place" approach.

I do worry that if your approach to support is handing out mutagens for others to use then that's going to make for a character that isn't very fun to play; it rings of the old Geisha Bard exploit where the best thing you can do for a combat is to not be there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The debate on whether an 18 is needed in the key stat is in another thread . The general consensus seems to have been “no” but only gameplay will truly clarify that.

Because on paper of course it seems like that but the game isn’t played on paper. An example is how lots of people claim the 1E Kineticist is underpowered and low tier but it has absolutely dominated the AP i am running especially levels 1-7. Brutally dominated. So conceptual arguments based on maths should be taken with a pinch of salt in my view

*

I also can’t recall if this was truly addressed but can an 8 strength alchemist be unencumbered in 1E if the rules are played properly? I haven’t checked back higher up but I am sure a few people said “no” and I *think* the people throwing it out as the extreme case of the example ignored the question (but need to start work so can’t check)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat.
Yeah you can, easily.
Quote:
For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.

A -1? NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMYCHARACTERISUNPLYABLENAONUUUUUUUUUUUUU


6 people marked this as a favorite.

16/16 DEX/INT makes a perfectly viable alchemist.

Needing a 12 or 14 in STR to be unencumbered while carrying the basics is still a tax that other characters don't have to deal with.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.

I disagree with the philosophy behind this statement. For me Pathfinder isn't the kind of game that is about "winning", i.e. competing against other players or the GM or some such. If that were the case you could do a bunch of math, find the class/race/stats/feats/spells etc that gave you the "best" numbers and that would be that.

On the other hand, if one's goal is to have fun with friends role-playing cool characters, the above approach makes no sense IMO. There are almost infinite permutations of class/race/stats/feats/spells etc that make up characters which can fit a player's vision and which are completely viable, both thematically and mechanically. If you're not competing about how fast you can level up or how many hit points of damage you can do at X level, then it doesn't matter. I'm not sure why anyone would care about that, as long as you aren't so weak that you die in every adventure or something like that.

And even that isn't always so important. I remember playing a game where someone was slaughtered so early and so brutally that it was actually hilarious for him and everyone else, and made for one of the more memorable gaming moments ever for me.

In 10 years no one is going to remember that your character took down the boss by himself that one time. But they will probably remember the time you role-played so hilariously that people were spraying pepsi out of their noses laughing.

Sovereign Court

If you're not going to do in combat healing with your medicine kit, then you don't need to carry it yourself. You just earned 2 points of strength back.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
If you're not going to do in combat healing with your medicine kit, then you don't need to carry it yourself. You just earned 2 points of strength back.

You never use it in combat by default. The Battlefield Medicine Feat does not require it.

The 5.6 I mention above does not include such a kit however, which makes the Alchemist's Bulk issue very real even ignoring the Healer's Kit.


Hmm what about if alchemists had a bonus ability at 1st level that allowed them to carry some extra bulk? Or yeah just reduce the bulk of the equipment by a little.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm honestly probably just gonna House Rule the Alchemist's Tools to 1 Bulk and call it a day. There's no thematic reason it can't be, after all.


Yeah probably the same I was just trying to think if their was something people without house rule options can do but I guess paizo would have to put some errata out to actually help them.

101 to 150 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.