Change in ability score importance


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not involved in details here, but I really can't understand claims like "Alchemist just doesn't care about STR". It's explicitly and massively a gear based class, with the advantage it doesn't count as magic. Gear takes up Bulk, and you need STR to not be Encumbered with Bulk. That is the premise of the class, so having not-bad STR in order to carry gear while Unencumbered is just not something I can cry over. I mean, Encumbered is like being a Dwarf in Medium armor, it shouldn't even be end of world for most characters. Yet people act like it is leprosy, some condition which is to never never be experienced, or that they are entitled to tank STR to 8 if they want because it doesn't do anything except carry their gear-based class' gear. Anyways, personally I'm a fan of distributing gear on horses or mules or other characters with excess capacity.

If you want to play a class that carries no gear so you have zero need for STR, play a monk or sorceror.
This isn't that class. That's what the numbers tell you. Listen to what the class says it's about.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

You need it to stabilize and stop bleeding, both actions you can do in combat. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Battlefield Medicine require it if it comes up for errata/FAQ as every other listed action of medicine requires it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
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.

If they just followed PF1 weights and used their own conversion, it's be a lot better for bulk. An Alchemy crafting kit is 5 lbs [1 bulk], a book is 1-3 lbs [l bulk], a healers kit is 1 lb [l bulk], a light crossbow is 4 lbs [l bulk]... And I'm still wondering how 200' of rope, 4 javelins or 4 weeks rations fits into a belt pouch. [PF1 lists it's size as "large enough to hold 100–200 coins or two apples"] :P


graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

You need it to stabilize and stop bleeding, both actions you can do in combat. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Battlefield Medicine require it if it comes up for errata/FAQ as every other listed action of medicine requires it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
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.
If they just followed PF1 weights and used their own conversion, it's be a lot better for bulk. An Alchemy crafting kit is 5 lbs [1 bulk], a book is 1-3 lbs [l bulk], a healers kit is 1 lb [l bulk], a light crossbow is 4 lbs [l bulk]... And I'm still wondering how 200' of rope, 4 javelins or 4 weeks rations fits into a belt pouch. [PF1 lists it's size as "large enough to hold 100–200 coins or two apples"] :P

I'm not a fan of bulk but i feel my suggestion is a lot more likely to happen then them just getting rid of bulk all together


Quandary wrote:
It's explicitly and massively a gear based class

WHy? What mandates large amounts of bulk other than arbitrary big bulk numbers on the equipment?

Quandary wrote:
Gear takes up Bulk, and you need STR to not be Encumbered with Bulk.

... So it have to pay extra stat point for the 'boon' of being non-magical? No thanks.

Quandary wrote:
I mean, Encumbered is like being a Dwarf in Medium armor, it shouldn't even be end of world for most characters.

nd if I don't want to be one of those? It's also "like being a Dwarf in Medium armor" that has clumsy 1 [-1 to Dexterity-based checks and DCs, including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and skill checks using Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery].

Quandary wrote:
they are entitled to tank STR to 8 if they want

No, more like have to buy a 12 it avoid.

Quandary wrote:
Anyways, personally I'm a fan of distributing gear on horses or mules or other characters with excess capacity.

And I'm not.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I'm not a fan of bulk but i feel my suggestion is a lot more likely to happen then them just getting rid of bulk all together

While I'd LOVE getting rid of bulk, my post was for them to readjusting the bulk numbers using PF1 weight numbers and their own conversion rate. That seem in line with your "Or yeah just reduce the bulk of the equipment by a little." I don't think an errata to some bulks that unlikely.


Yeah reducing the weight is for sure the most direct answer to the problem.


graystone wrote:
Quandary wrote:
It's explicitly and massively a gear based class

WHy? What mandates large amounts of bulk other than arbitrary big bulk numbers on the equipment?

Quandary wrote:
Gear takes up Bulk, and you need STR to not be Encumbered with Bulk.

... So it have to pay extra stat point for the 'boon' of being non-magical? No thanks.

Quandary wrote:
I mean, Encumbered is like being a Dwarf in Medium armor, it shouldn't even be end of world for most characters.

nd if I don't want to be one of those? It's also "like being a Dwarf in Medium armor" that has clumsy 1 [-1 to Dexterity-based checks and DCs, including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and skill checks using Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery].

Quandary wrote:
they are entitled to tank STR to 8 if they want

No, more like have to buy a 12 it avoid.

Quandary wrote:
Anyways, personally I'm a fan of distributing gear on horses or mules or other characters with excess capacity.
And I'm not.

I sympathized before, but it says here the chirurgeon can make a craft check to heal... he can use his alchemist kit to do it.


totoro wrote:
I sympathized before, but it says here the chirurgeon can make a craft check to heal... he can use his alchemist kit to do it.

Yes it says that can make the check with a different skill... Where does it say that it alters the ACTION in any way? Look under the medicine skill and look at the ACTION you're allowed to use with your alchemy check. Each and every one states "Requirements You have healer’s tools (page 290)."

NOTHING in the alchemist ability does it alter/change/modify that requirement. You need the alchemy kit to use the craft roll and get the bonus for the kit and you need the healers kit use the medicine ACTION.

"As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses."

"for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses"

Each use says "Requirements You have healer’s tools (page 290)."

Unless we see errata, healer's tool ARE required.


graystone wrote:
totoro wrote:
I sympathized before, but it says here the chirurgeon can make a craft check to heal... he can use his alchemist kit to do it.

Yes it says that can make the check with a different skill... Where does it say that it alters the ACTION in any way? Look under the medicine skill and look at the ACTION you're allowed to use with your alchemy check. Each and every one states "Requirements You have healer’s tools (page 290)."

NOTHING in the alchemist ability does it alter/change/modify that requirement. You need the alchemy kit to use the craft roll and get the bonus for the kit and you need the healers kit use the medicine ACTION.

"As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses."

"for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses"

Each use says "Requirements You have healer’s tools (page 290)."

Unless we see errata, healer's tool ARE required.

I think you are correct.


totoro wrote:
I think you are correct.

I wish I wasn't: hopefully they intended them to be able to use their alchemy tools and it's an easy FAQ/Errata fix. ;)


The easy solution within the rules would be to create an elixir that lets you carry additional bulk. I'm pretty sure ant haul was on the alchemist spell list in PF1 anyway.

But yeah, the ability to use Crafting instead of Medicine for various tasks should also let you sub in your Alchemist's Tools for a set of Healer's Tools.


Alternatively, and IMHO the most likely way it will actually be addressed, they will introduce a travelers alchemist kit that can only be used to make infused items but has a weight of 1 bulk And bring back traveling spellbooks/formula books that only weigh light bulk with half the number of pages.

151 to 162 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.