I'm unhappy about changes to Beastial mutagen / alchemist and wish to discuss this.


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

More nerfs: poisons... See Bestial Mutagen and poison


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Um. . . New Bestial Mutagen is leagues better than PT. The only version that is missing is the +5 version. New one gives you scaling damage; to add to that there’s a level 8 Mutagen specific feat that caps the damage at d12 for bite and d10’s for claws. Beyond that it’s a +4 item bonus that bumps their Attack with Expert to a +8; they have Agile (self explanatory) and the crit Specialization Deadly d10, meaning on a crit you add a d10 for every weapon die you just used (that’s where all your extra damage dice went). I believe it also gives the Alchemist Greater Weapon specialization for added damage.

In the PT, unless one of the updates had changed it, all it gave you was added dice to damage; it never raised it above a d4.

You're really comparing apples and oranges: PF1 feral was 1d6 claws and a 1d8 bite, it worked at full BAB instead of the alchemist BAB and was an add-on to the normal mutagen. So if you look at it in full at max it gives:

+5 to hit
2 claws at 1d6
1 bite at 1d8
+2 intimidate
+8 natural armor bonus
+8 alchemical bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.
–2 penalty to his Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma
IMO this in in no way inferior to the PF2 one and IMO PF1 beats it out handily [total +9 to hit, NO minus for multiple attacks, +8 bonuses to every physical stat, +8 bonuses to AC]. Even the penalties are better for PF1 [-2 mental stats vs –1 penalty to AC and a –2 penalty to Reflex saves].

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh...Pumpkinhead11 was talking about the playtest, not PF1.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Um. . . New Bestial Mutagen is leagues better than PT. The only version that is missing is the +5 version. New one gives you scaling damage; to add to that there’s a level 8 Mutagen specific feat that caps the damage at d12 for bite and d10’s for claws. Beyond that it’s a +4 item bonus that bumps their Attack with Expert to a +8; they have Agile (self explanatory) and the crit Specialization Deadly d10, meaning on a crit you add a d10 for every weapon die you just used (that’s where all your extra damage dice went). I believe it also gives the Alchemist Greater Weapon specialization for added damage.

In the PT, unless one of the updates had changed it, all it gave you was added dice to damage; it never raised it above a d4.

You're really comparing apples and oranges: PF1 feral was 1d6 claws and a 1d8 bite, it worked at full BAB instead of the alchemist BAB...

PF1 Feral Mutagen worked off of the Alchemist's full BAB, that is, their 3/4 level base attack bonus. It specifies because the natural attacks are primary attacks, instead of secondary attacks that would be based on BAB -5.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Um. . . New Bestial Mutagen is leagues better than PT. The only version that is missing is the +5 version. New one gives you scaling damage; to add to that there’s a level 8 Mutagen specific feat that caps the damage at d12 for bite and d10’s for claws. Beyond that it’s a +4 item bonus that bumps their Attack with Expert to a +8; they have Agile (self explanatory) and the crit Specialization Deadly d10, meaning on a crit you add a d10 for every weapon die you just used (that’s where all your extra damage dice went). I believe it also gives the Alchemist Greater Weapon specialization for added damage.

In the PT, unless one of the updates had changed it, all it gave you was added dice to damage; it never raised it above a d4.

Feral gave you a natural agile unarmed I believe in PT

But in PT beastial mutagenist could grab improved unarmed attacks from level 2 either way via archetypes.

If you so wished you could reach d8/d10 as opposed to d10/d12 here, but you'll always be 1 more die.

The thing is beastial on PT was ahead of the curve in both Attack and damage. Giving it some purpose and edge.

Now it's just +1 to attack for -2 AC -2 Ref

@Deadmanwalking :

Again you can't simply say that alchemists have utility and Rangers don't in pf2.

They are better at scouting, Monster identification, snares, they can actually provide even slight buffs, animal companions, etc

They are one of the most diverse martial class.

I didn't try to compare with barbarians or fighters.

But when Rangers and rogues, both of which have good to great utility and ooc stuff get up to master proficiency on top of straight up combat enhancers (edge and sneak respectively) then yes, I find it too much.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Again you can't simply say that alchemists have utility and Rangers don't in pf2.

Rangers have plenty of utility and I never said otherwise. Alchemists have more.

shroudb wrote:
They are better at scouting, Monster identification, snares, they can actually provide even slight buffs, animal companions, etc

How are they better at scouting? A Mutagenist can use Quicksilver Mutagen and exceed basically any melee Ranger in that area pretty rapidly. And, as established above, they compare favorably with archer Rangers in DPR.

For that matter, how are they better at monster identification? The Ranger probably have decent Wisdom and can thus do fine with Nature and Religion, but not nearly as well as the Alchemist does at Arcana and Occultism.

Snares I'll certainly grant you, but that's a very specific thing I'm not even sure I'd usually consider utility. Ditto animal companions. What real utility does an animal companion provide outside combat? I'm curious.

And they can do party buffing, but not nearly as well as the Alchemist can.

shroudb wrote:
They are one of the most diverse martial class.

They're diverse, yes. Diversity and degree of utility are not quite the same thing, though.

shroudb wrote:
I didn't try to compare with barbarians or fighters.

I don't think it matters all that much, as I believe Ranger DPR gets on par with theirs with the right kind of Ranger.

shroudb wrote:
But when Rangers and rogues, both of which have good to great utility and ooc stuff get up to master proficiency on top of straight up combat enhancers (edge and sneak respectively) then yes, I find it too much.

I'd be interested in looking at Rogues, and may do that myself, simply because I feel like they're the best utility equivalent. Both they and Alchemists are way past Rangers in utility, though.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
rayous brightblade wrote:

generally 3 ranged is bad because of limited ammo and 3rd attacks rarely hit with the -10. Swords don't have that issue as they don't disappear after use.

edit: though thrown weapons with returning are a different matter.

Note: do not put Returning on bombs.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Again you can't simply say that alchemists have utility and Rangers don't in pf2.

Rangers have plenty of utility and I never said otherwise. Alchemists have more.

shroudb wrote:
They are better at scouting, Monster identification, snares, they can actually provide even slight buffs, animal companions, etc

How are they better at scouting? A Mutagenist can use Quicksilver Mutagen and exceed basically any melee Ranger in that area pretty rapidly. And, as established above, they compare favorably with archer Rangers in DPR.

For that matter, how are they better at monster identification? The Ranger probably have decent Wisdom and can thus do fine with Nature and Religion, but not nearly as well as the Alchemist does at Arcana and Occultism.

Snares I'll certainly grant you, but that's a very specific thing I'm not even sure I'd usually consider utility. Ditto animal companions. What real utility does an animal companion provide outside combat? I'm curious.

And they can do party buffing, but not nearly as well as the Alchemist can.

shroudb wrote:
They are one of the most diverse martial class.

They're diverse, yes. Diversity and degree of utility are not quite the same thing, though.

shroudb wrote:
I didn't try to compare with barbarians or fighters.

I don't think it matters all that much, as I believe Ranger DPR gets on par with theirs with the right kind of Ranger.

shroudb wrote:
But when Rangers and rogues, both of which have good to great utility and ooc stuff get up to master proficiency on top of straight up combat enhancers (edge and sneak respectively) then yes, I find it too much.
I'd be interested in looking at Rogues, and may do that myself, simply because I feel like they're the best utility equivalent. Both they and Alchemists are way past Rangers in utility, though.

Then we can only agree to disagree.

Legendary perception is way better scouting.
Free action monster identification that identifies ALL types of creatures from one skill is better (since you can easily have nature at master/legendary as opposed to alchemist knowledges that are usually stuck at forever trained except maybe one)


Lanathar wrote:

Master proficiency seems to be the equivalent of old Full BAB (and fighters are now a cut above)

Alchemists never got full BAB so why would they get the equivalent now?
There have been so many posts about people who want Master proficiency on every class - but then that would really eat into the strengths of those who currently have it

Surely you beast mutagen is not the ONLY thing that a level 11 alchemist can do at that level?

But from your tone it sounds like you are just expressing outrage rather than actually wanting an answer. For example the reply above about 4d10 agile is something you shot down in 5 minutes. So what do you want to achieve from your post?

I'm fairly new to 2e, but I been noticing what you said. It seems everyone wants master/legendary armor, weapons and casting and classes seem to be compared as if going in a pvp chamber?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Then we can only agree to disagree.

Probably.

shroudb wrote:
Legendary perception is way better scouting.

I was thinking Stealth.

In terms of Perception, Ranger only gets Legendary at 15th, by that point, an Alchemist can combine Mutagens and get bonuses to both Stealth and Perception. At lower levels they're precisely one Proficiency rank up on the Alchemist. That matters, and is a utility boon, but it doesn't outweigh all the Alchemist stuff

shroudb wrote:
Free action monster identification that identifies ALL types of creatures from one skill is better (since you can easily have nature at master/legendary as opposed to alchemist knowledges that are usually stuck at forever trained except maybe one)

That's a Feat (actually, two Feats) and doesn't kick in until 10th level, so even if it does make them better (which I'm not sure it does, given Mutagens on top of being Int-based...it's very good, but not completely overpowering), it's hardly a whole career boost.


Something else that sucks with Bestial Mutagen is that you can't get Property runes unless you have Potency runes. One of the benefits of Bestial Mutagen is that it gives a scaling item bonus... which is the same benefit than a potency rune gives.

Striking runes don't seem to require Potency runes so it looks like you should be able to only buy the striking runes to increase the damage, but if you want to add some property rune, you need to buy the Potency rune, and at that point you've lost a good part of the benefit of the bestial mutagens...


Sounds like you should transfer over a specific magic weapon's abilities instead (since you can't add property runes to them but you can add fundamental runes).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

you see, i wouldn't mind instead of trash feats like:

"identifying alchemical items is 1 round instead of 10minutes" (lol.. class feats...)

having something like:

"Elemental infusion, Additive 2:
You can choose 1 element (fire, cold, lightning, acid) to infuse in your mutagen. You can choose the mutagen to either give Resistance 5 to that element, or to add 1d6 to weapon and unarmed attacks while under the influence of this mutagen. This counts as a property rune for maximum amount of property runes on an item"

and etc.

People say that alchemist is a "good class to archetype" that's because the base class features AND the class feats are mostly trash until like level 12. So you literally lose very little things compared to a full blown alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Then we can only agree to disagree.

Probably.

shroudb wrote:
Legendary perception is way better scouting.

I was thinking Stealth.

In terms of Perception, Ranger only gets Legendary at 15th, by that point, an Alchemist can combine Mutagens and get bonuses to both Stealth and Perception. At lower levels they're precisely one Proficiency rank up on the Alchemist. That matters, and is a utility boon, but it doesn't outweigh all the Alchemist stuff

shroudb wrote:
Free action monster identification that identifies ALL types of creatures from one skill is better (since you can easily have nature at master/legendary as opposed to alchemist knowledges that are usually stuck at forever trained except maybe one)
That's a Feat (actually, two Feats) and doesn't kick in until 10th level, so even if it does make them better (which I'm not sure it does, given Mutagens on top of being Int-based...it's very good, but not completely overpowering), it's hardly a whole career boost.

yes, obviously with feats.

The "dps comparisson" that pulled Ranger ahead was without any feats at all.

My point was that someone who wanted to make a support ranger has better utility AND better damage than an alchemist.

They are better in scouting, they can give +1 to all party members in both attack and saves for 1 round vs each opponent (vs +1 to some but for more than 1 round), they can give + to ally initiative, they are way ahead in monstr idendification, and etc.

alternative they could have an Animal companion that also helps by adding additional bodies, hp in the the group, flanks, and etc while also being a damage increase.

And they still have Edge+ a few combat feats to pull ahead in damage even with all the above.

Now look at alchemist feats that are mostly feats taxes just to make his ability even work (before level 12, after level 12 he actually gets some decent things, but playing 70%+ of your career with trash options is terrible)


rayous brightblade wrote:
Sounds like you should transfer over a specific magic weapon's abilities instead (since you can't add property runes to them but you can add fundamental runes).

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Maybe I wasn't clear but you could get a Property rune for your unarmed attacks by buying Handwraps of Mighty Blows: add a +1 Potency rune, a greater Striking rune, and then a Property rune but the +1 Potency rune is basically redundant. It only costs 35 gp, but at level 11 the +2 rune that you need to buy if you want to add another property rune costs 935 gp. Bestial mutagen already gives you a +3 item bonus at level 11 so buying the +2 Potency rune is a total Rune tax.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
shroudb wrote:
"identifying alchemical items is 1 round instead of 10minutes" (lol.. class feats...)

Being able to identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight, gain a bonus on identifying them, and not being able to Critically Fail identifying them?

Yeah that's a pretty good feat. You not liking it doesn't make it "trash".


Faenor wrote:
rayous brightblade wrote:
Sounds like you should transfer over a specific magic weapon's abilities instead (since you can't add property runes to them but you can add fundamental runes).

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Maybe I wasn't clear but you could get a Property rune for your unarmed attacks by buying Handwraps of Mighty Blows: add a +1 Potency rune, a greater Striking rune, and then a Property rune but the +1 Potency rune is basically redundant. It only costs 35 gp, but at level 11 the +2 rune that you need to buy if you want to add another property rune costs 935 gp. Bestial mutagen already gives you a +3 item bonus at level 11 so buying the +2 Potency rune is a total Rune tax.

For example making a greater flametongue handwrap only uses 1 property rune as the other effects aren't property runes and therefore are not limited by the potency rune limit. You could transfer the extra abilities over to the handwraps (giving you +1 greater striking greater flaming handwraps and a +3 sword) and then sell the +3 sword. Now you have greater flaming as a property rune and a level 9 produce flame and a 1/day give all within 10 feet flaming for 1 minute on your handwraps.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Master proficiency seems to be the equivalent of old Full BAB (and fighters are now a cut above)

Alchemists never got full BAB so why would they get the equivalent now?
There have been so many posts about people who want Master proficiency on every class - but then that would really eat into the strengths of those who currently have it

Surely you beast mutagen is not the ONLY thing that a level 11 alchemist can do at that level?

But from your tone it sounds like you are just expressing outrage rather than actually wanting an answer. For example the reply above about 4d10 agile is something you shot down in 5 minutes. So what do you want to achieve from your post?

I'm fairly new to 2e, but I been noticing what you said. It seems everyone wants master/legendary armor, weapons and casting and classes seem to be compared as if going in a pvp chamber?

That's sort of how it goes with a lot of these discussions, yeah, and never really gets anywhere because comparing classes directly against each other this way never ends up with satisfying answers to anyone, since I don't think they're meant to be discussed this way.

It's something a lot of hardcore math/optimization/theorycrafting fans do, which is great for them to share that, but it won't matter at like... 80% of tables you play at, likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also this class benefits greatly from more alchemical items existing and so, like casters, will get better as more books come out. Already 2 new mutigens exist in the fall of plaguestone adventure. So it's hard to say if this class is too weak over all even if it may be too weak using only the core book (and that's debatable).


rayous brightblade wrote:
For example making a greater flametongue handwrap only uses 1 property rune as the other effects aren't property runes and therefore are not limited by the potency rune limit. You could transfer the extra abilities over to the handwraps (giving you +1 greater striking greater flaming handwraps and a +3 sword) and then sell the +3 sword. Now you have greater flaming as a property rune and a level 9 produce flame and a 1/day give all within 10 feet flaming for 1 minute on your handwraps.

I see, clever but I'm not sure that's legal. I guess flametongue could be considered the property rune and it has multiple effects e.g. flamming, produce flamme 1/day, etc. or it could be considered multiple property runes, or only flaming can be transferred.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
"identifying alchemical items is 1 round instead of 10minutes" (lol.. class feats...)

Being able to identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight, gain a bonus on identifying them, and not being able to Critically Fail identifying them?

Yeah that's a pretty good feat. You not liking it doesn't make it "trash".

...why would you identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight instead of, you know, fighting?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
"identifying alchemical items is 1 round instead of 10minutes" (lol.. class feats...)

Being able to identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight, gain a bonus on identifying them, and not being able to Critically Fail identifying them?

Yeah that's a pretty good feat. You not liking it doesn't make it "trash".

...why would you identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight instead of, you know, fighting?

Maybe someone got knocked into dying and you have this unidentified vial in your hands while the rest of the group and enemies are waaaaay over there.


GameDesignerDM wrote:


It's something a lot of hardcore math/optimization/theorycrafting fans do, which is great for them to share that, but it won't matter at like... 80% of tables you play at, likely.

It seems kind of reductionist to just dismiss someone's concerns as "only hardcore theorycrafting" if they don't like how a class plays in practice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
"identifying alchemical items is 1 round instead of 10minutes" (lol.. class feats...)

Being able to identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight, gain a bonus on identifying them, and not being able to Critically Fail identifying them?

Yeah that's a pretty good feat. You not liking it doesn't make it "trash".

...why would you identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight instead of, you know, fighting?
Maybe someone got knocked into dying and you have this unidentified vial in your hands while the rest of the group and enemies are waaaaay over there.

A) why didn't you identify it when you got it.

B) how many times exactly has this happened to your party.

Because from my understanding, a class feat isn't something you expect to use once in a whole campaign...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
"identifying alchemical items is 1 round instead of 10minutes" (lol.. class feats...)

Being able to identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight, gain a bonus on identifying them, and not being able to Critically Fail identifying them?

Yeah that's a pretty good feat. You not liking it doesn't make it "trash".

...why would you identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight instead of, you know, fighting?
Maybe someone got knocked into dying and you have this unidentified vial in your hands while the rest of the group and enemies are waaaaay over there.

A) why didn't you identify it when you got it.

B) how many times exactly has this happened to your party.

Because from my understanding, a class feat isn't something you expect to use once in a whole campaign...

A) They are.

B) Plenty! NPCs carry potions too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget that potions aren't alchemical items, so if they're carrying a potion instead of an elixir, Alchemical Savant is a waste of an action.


shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
"identifying alchemical items is 1 round instead of 10minutes" (lol.. class feats...)

Being able to identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight, gain a bonus on identifying them, and not being able to Critically Fail identifying them?

Yeah that's a pretty good feat. You not liking it doesn't make it "trash".

...why would you identify alchemical items in the middle of a fight instead of, you know, fighting?
Maybe someone got knocked into dying and you have this unidentified vial in your hands while the rest of the group and enemies are waaaaay over there.

A) why didn't you identify it when you got it.

B) how many times exactly has this happened to your party.

Because from my understanding, a class feat isn't something you expect to use once in a whole campaign...

C) given the percentage of things in a random vial that could help someone dying is...pretty low...why aren't you using that turn to use a medicine check or feed them an elixir of life.


Themetricsystem wrote:
shroudb wrote:
b)you'll run out of bombs if you use 3 bombs every round in less than 1 combat (let alone that the -10 one will rarely hit if ever)
You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.

In theory if you have perpetual bombs you could potentially do a 3 round burst now and then with debuff bombs just to slather stuff around and missing one or two is not really hurting you.


kaid wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
shroudb wrote:
b)you'll run out of bombs if you use 3 bombs every round in less than 1 combat (let alone that the -10 one will rarely hit if ever)
You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.
In theory if you have perpetual bombs you could potentially do a 3 round burst now and then with debuff bombs just to slather stuff around and missing one or two is not really hurting you.

This is actually a good point, and you can do it as early/late as level 7. Armageddon Alchemist coming right up!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
kaid wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
shroudb wrote:
b)you'll run out of bombs if you use 3 bombs every round in less than 1 combat (let alone that the -10 one will rarely hit if ever)
You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.
In theory if you have perpetual bombs you could potentially do a 3 round burst now and then with debuff bombs just to slather stuff around and missing one or two is not really hurting you.
This is actually a good point, and you can do it as early/late as level 7. Armageddon Alchemist coming right up!

Calm your jets boys.

Perpetual still requires an action to make each.

They are basically 2 actions per attack, so at MOST you can go 1 attack>2 attacks>1 attack>etc

With them

And that requires enduring Alchemy as well.

So it's usually just 1 Perpetual attack per round.


shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
kaid wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
shroudb wrote:
b)you'll run out of bombs if you use 3 bombs every round in less than 1 combat (let alone that the -10 one will rarely hit if ever)
You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.
In theory if you have perpetual bombs you could potentially do a 3 round burst now and then with debuff bombs just to slather stuff around and missing one or two is not really hurting you.
This is actually a good point, and you can do it as early/late as level 7. Armageddon Alchemist coming right up!

Calm your jets boys.

Perpetual still requires an action to make each.

They are basically 2 actions per attack, so at MOST you can go 1 attack>2 attacks>1 attack>etc

With them

And that requires enduring Alchemy as well.

So it's usually just 1 Perpetual attack per round.

Actually perpetual makes two per quick alchemy roll. So two bombs per round if you just want to do some concentrated debuffing is doable every round. One action to make the two bombs and two actions to attack twice. If you want to do three bombs in one round that is very possible but you can't do it every round. One round you can quick alchemy which makes 2 bombs/ quick alchemy make 2 bombs and throw one bomb. Next round you can throw three bombs. You could keep that pattern up basically forever if all you are trying to do is perpetual alchemy and debuff all of the things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
kaid wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
shroudb wrote:
b)you'll run out of bombs if you use 3 bombs every round in less than 1 combat (let alone that the -10 one will rarely hit if ever)
You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.
In theory if you have perpetual bombs you could potentially do a 3 round burst now and then with debuff bombs just to slather stuff around and missing one or two is not really hurting you.
This is actually a good point, and you can do it as early/late as level 7. Armageddon Alchemist coming right up!

Calm your jets boys.

Perpetual still requires an action to make each.

They are basically 2 actions per attack, so at MOST you can go 1 attack>2 attacks>1 attack>etc

With them

And that requires enduring Alchemy as well.

So it's usually just 1 Perpetual attack per round.

Actually perpetual makes two per quick alchemy roll. So two bombs per round if you just want to do some concentrated debuffing is doable every round. One action to make the two bombs and two actions to attack twice. If you want to do three bombs in one round that is very possible but you can't do it every round. One round you can quick alchemy which makes 2 bombs/ quick alchemy make 2 bombs and throw one bomb. Next round you can throw three bombs. You could keep that pattern up basically forever if all you are trying to do is perpetual alchemy and debuff all of the things.

nah, RAW dual quick alchemy (the thing you refer to) says you have to spend 2 reagents. Not "double", but 2.

so can't really use it with perpetual.

Perpetual is like cantrips atm, 2 actions for 1 "effect".


One nice thing about that kind of barrage of dinky bombs is even on the 3rd attack so long as you don't critically miss you are applying your splash damage and given you probably have calculated splash if you are doing this then you are doing your int bonus as damage to your target even if you don't have any legit chance of hitting so long as you don't fail too badly.


shroudb wrote:
kaid wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
kaid wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
shroudb wrote:
b)you'll run out of bombs if you use 3 bombs every round in less than 1 combat (let alone that the -10 one will rarely hit if ever)
You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.
In theory if you have perpetual bombs you could potentially do a 3 round burst now and then with debuff bombs just to slather stuff around and missing one or two is not really hurting you.
This is actually a good point, and you can do it as early/late as level 7. Armageddon Alchemist coming right up!

Calm your jets boys.

Perpetual still requires an action to make each.

They are basically 2 actions per attack, so at MOST you can go 1 attack>2 attacks>1 attack>etc

With them

And that requires enduring Alchemy as well.

So it's usually just 1 Perpetual attack per round.

Actually perpetual makes two per quick alchemy roll. So two bombs per round if you just want to do some concentrated debuffing is doable every round. One action to make the two bombs and two actions to attack twice. If you want to do three bombs in one round that is very possible but you can't do it every round. One round you can quick alchemy which makes 2 bombs/ quick alchemy make 2 bombs and throw one bomb. Next round you can throw three bombs. You could keep that pattern up basically forever if all you are trying to do is perpetual alchemy and debuff all of the things.

nah, RAW dual quick alchemy (the thing you refer to) says you have to spend 2 reagents. Not "double", but 2.

so can't really use it with perpetual.

Perpetual is like cantrips atm, 2 actions for 1 "effect".

I think I see what you mean but damn the wording on this ability be weird.

You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents.

Oh well still doing two bombs in a turn would be very doable one of your normal ones and one quick one.


kaid wrote:
One nice thing about that kind of barrage of dinky bombs is even on the 3rd attack so long as you don't critically miss you are applying your splash damage and given you probably have calculated splash if you are doing this then you are doing your int bonus as damage to your target even if you don't have any legit chance of hitting so long as you don't fail too badly.

again, can't do a 3rd attack if you have to spend an action to make the bomb in the first place.

unless you mean that for some reason you spend one round making them and second round throwing them, which is counterintutive since that way you just have lower attack bonuses than if you simply threw them as you were making them.

the wording of "you make two items" is really:

you make 2 items, x and y.

every specialisation gives two items.

it doesn't mean you make 2 per action.

it's similar to how quick alchemy says you can make the stuff in your book. It doesn't mean you can make them all in 1 action, just that "hey you can make those"


Yup I did misunderstand the wording there I am looking at it on the website and I think the way it segments stuff makes it read different than what it intends.

I think that kinda grabled how enduring alchemy works as well. It makes it sound like it works on anything you make via quick alchemy but when you drill down it is elixers and tools so not bombs. Oh well two bombs a round if you are not moving pretty reasonable of one normal bomb and one cantrip bomb.

Still waiting for my book to arrive apparently my order got delayed because I had the omens world guide with it /sigh.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...Pumpkinhead11 was talking about the playtest, not PF1.

I misread PT as PF I think.


shroudb wrote:
kaid wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
kaid wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
shroudb wrote:
b)you'll run out of bombs if you use 3 bombs every round in less than 1 combat (let alone that the -10 one will rarely hit if ever)
You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.
In theory if you have perpetual bombs you could potentially do a 3 round burst now and then with debuff bombs just to slather stuff around and missing one or two is not really hurting you.
This is actually a good point, and you can do it as early/late as level 7. Armageddon Alchemist coming right up!

Calm your jets boys.

Perpetual still requires an action to make each.

They are basically 2 actions per attack, so at MOST you can go 1 attack>2 attacks>1 attack>etc

With them

And that requires enduring Alchemy as well.

So it's usually just 1 Perpetual attack per round.

Actually perpetual makes two per quick alchemy roll. So two bombs per round if you just want to do some concentrated debuffing is doable every round. One action to make the two bombs and two actions to attack twice. If you want to do three bombs in one round that is very possible but you can't do it every round. One round you can quick alchemy which makes 2 bombs/ quick alchemy make 2 bombs and throw one bomb. Next round you can throw three bombs. You could keep that pattern up basically forever if all you are trying to do is perpetual alchemy and debuff all of the things.

nah, RAW dual quick alchemy (the thing you refer to) says you have to spend 2 reagents. Not "double", but 2.

so can't really use it with perpetual.

Perpetual is like cantrips atm, 2 actions for 1 "effect".

No, the wording works. It says you can spend ‘up to’ two batches to create two items. Perpetual Bombs don’t cost Regents so it’s free. Consequently if you use Double Brew with one that cost regents and one that’s free then it still costs one regent. If it cost two regents it would say a flat rate or say ‘an additional x regents’.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

actual wording:
"When using the Quick Alchemy
action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents
to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches
of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items
as described in that action."

"instead of spending one" you never spend one, so you don't qualify
"you can spend up to two to make up to two" : you need to spend 2 to make 2. It's the same sentence, don't break it up.

sadly it doesn't work.

i'd LOVE it to work, but it simply doesn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, it works just fine. Perpetual is just the exception to the wording. Otherwise you’re saying that when you make something perpetual, no longer costs regents, that it can’t be double brewed period; not all of a sudden cost two.

The wording is most likely there for additives like smoke bomb that you couldn’t double brew.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure how related conversations on perpetual and double brew are to this thread (as I don't think mutagenist use it that often, at least in battle wise maybe for utility bonuses)
I don't think Double Brew works at all with Perpetual though.
" When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action"
and perp "You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents. "

It says 'instead of spending one batch" peprpetual does not interact with infused reagents (does not use any). so you can't "instead" the 0 for the 2. Only the 1 for the 2 (at extra cost). Double Brew's restricted wording means you can't. I really wish it had been worded like..
"When....action, you can create up to two items by paying for each item, instead of creating one. as described in that action." Since this would open up for any future abilities they made add (such as pay double the cost to power up or something)
I do really want it to work with perpetual though.

-----
Which reminds me of something I saw on reddit like.. 3-4 times.
As a weird sidenote. I've seen some folks on reddit say the wording on prepetual means you make 2 already base line.
"You have learned how to create perpetual alchemical infusions that can provide a near-infinite supply of certain simple items. You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents. The items you can select depend on your research field and must be in your formula book."

" You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents." is the line they're using. Since the ability is worded "create two...using Quick Alchemy" they're reading it as Perpetual Quick Alchemy always makes 2 itmes--no matter what you do. So they were citing using quick alchem then throwing the 2 debilitated bombs. Part of what they cited was that the Research Field already specifies the limit of how many formula are OK for perpetual. So it listing that number is for what it does, not what it does with what.

I don't really think thats the way it is meant to read. Though it would be rather nice for bombers and mutagens (sorta, later when you can have two mutagen in you. Though low lv mutagen aren't that good at all for that level).

--
That wasn't really here nor there. But just reminded me while reading the above discussion on Perpetual and Double Brew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

No, it works just fine. Perpetual is just the exception to the wording. Otherwise you’re saying that when you make something perpetual, no longer costs regents, that it can’t be double brewed period; not all of a sudden cost two.

The wording is most likely there for additives like smoke bomb that you couldn’t double brew.

yup, i am saying that you can't double brew perpetual infusions period.

they don't interact per RAW.

now, the RAI might have been different, but there are no "exceptions" in the RAW unless stated, and this one isn't stated anywhere.


shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

No, it works just fine. Perpetual is just the exception to the wording. Otherwise you’re saying that when you make something perpetual, no longer costs regents, that it can’t be double brewed period; not all of a sudden cost two.

The wording is most likely there for additives like smoke bomb that you couldn’t double brew.

yup, i am saying that you can't double brew perpetual infusions period.

they don't interact per RAW.

now, the RAI might have been different, but there are no "exceptions" in the RAW unless stated, and this one isn't stated anywhere.

Yeah, no. That’s just an incorrect interpretation and an odd one at that. That’s not even RAW vs RAI.

Out of curiosity, is there a way to use less than 2 regents with double brew that doesn’t involve using perpetual?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

No, it works just fine. Perpetual is just the exception to the wording. Otherwise you’re saying that when you make something perpetual, no longer costs regents, that it can’t be double brewed period; not all of a sudden cost two.

The wording is most likely there for additives like smoke bomb that you couldn’t double brew.

yup, i am saying that you can't double brew perpetual infusions period.

they don't interact per RAW.

now, the RAI might have been different, but there are no "exceptions" in the RAW unless stated, and this one isn't stated anywhere.

Yeah, no. That’s just an incorrect interpretation and an odd one at that. That’s not even RAW vs RAI.

it's pure RAW:

you have one ability that says: reduce cost to 0
and another ability that says: instead of spending 1, you can spend 2 to make 2.

they cannot be combined at all.


shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

No, it works just fine. Perpetual is just the exception to the wording. Otherwise you’re saying that when you make something perpetual, no longer costs regents, that it can’t be double brewed period; not all of a sudden cost two.

The wording is most likely there for additives like smoke bomb that you couldn’t double brew.

yup, i am saying that you can't double brew perpetual infusions period.

they don't interact per RAW.

now, the RAI might have been different, but there are no "exceptions" in the RAW unless stated, and this one isn't stated anywhere.

Yeah, no. That’s just an incorrect interpretation and an odd one at that. That’s not even RAW vs RAI.

it's pure RAW:

you have one ability that says: reduce cost to 0
and another ability that says: instead of spending 1, you can spend 2 to make 2.

they cannot be combined at all.

Perpetual Infusion

You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents. The items you can select depend on your research field and must be in your formula book.

Double Brew

You know your formulas so well that you can concoct two items at once. When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action. These items do not have to be the same.

Quick Alchemy

QUICKALCHEMY [one-action]
Cost 1 batch of infused reagents

They both work. Perpetual Infusion doesn’t change the cost to zero. It says when you use quick alchemy to make them you don’t use regents. Double Brew just alters the cost of the Quick Alchemy ability; not create a limitation. The first line in double brew says you can make two items. If those items end up being perpetual infusions they don’t expend any regents and obey double brew in being 1) two items and 2) costing 2 or fewer regents. So it works RAW and RAI. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure where the oddness is. Double Brew specifically says that if you spend one batch, you can instead spend two batches to make two items.

If you're using perpetual infusions you aren't using your infused reagents. So you can't go from spending one reagent to spending two.

More than that, the specific "instead of spending one batch" language seems written expressly to disable double crafting of perpetual infusions.

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / I'm unhappy about changes to Beastial mutagen / alchemist and wish to discuss this. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.