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


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

so... the whole point of a bestial mutagenist is attacking under this mutagen's influence.

the "new and improved" version of it though is absolutely trash:

it no longer scales #of dices (used to be 1 die higher than a weapon of your level), just gives a very slight increase compared to a natural weapon you would get from other sources either way.

so, now, the ONLY thing that the mutagen does is:
-2 to AC, -2 to reflex, d12/d10 at level 11+

it has a +1 higher than your weapon (that you're now required to have for striking and properties either way) but Alchemist is already -1 due to strength not being main ability not even for the mutagenist (i guess only rogues are special in actually being able to choose their actual main stats...)

so, we're left with an "attacking archetype" that caps out at expert proficency, has 0 combat feats, has lower AC even from a giant barbarian, and all he gets back is that his die eventually becomes a d12...

what's the point?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You do just like the Monk, get the item that let you use striking runes in unnarmerd attacks, so now they will be the only class that have 4d10 agile in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
You do just like the Monk, get the item that let you use striking runes in unnarmerd attacks, so now they will be the only class that have 4d10 agile in the game.

i already mentioned they are forced now to get handwraps.

including those the end benefit is:

-2/4 attack -2 AC -2 Reflex d12/d10 weapon

you do realise how pointless is to have as a bonus "agile" when your attacks are at Expert proficeincy, right?

their whole "thing" was "free higher damage" at the cost of accuracy and it relying on consumables/

now they get shafted at their thing being "well, you hit extremely less, and do the same damage as everyone, at the cost of the same as everyone PLUS your daily resources! neat huh?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

again, the fact that it's agile is a terrible offset to an inherently worse attack stat that actually makes even the agile strike worse than a non-agile in a normal class.

old alchemists didn't have full bab indeed, but mutagen actually did severly MORE damage than a weapon attack, now it deals exactly as much as a weapon attack IF you already have a full bought "weapon" to begin with.

as for "master is full bab" need i remind you that pf2 has equalised that stupid notion? monks, rogues, and etc classes that basically are relying on their attacks as their main thing, ALL have master proficiency.

yet, mutagenist alchemist, an archetype 100% focused on his attacks, doesn't.

and yes, both rogues and monks also have equal, and in fact quite MORE things to do that simply "strike".

what i want?

i want balance for a class that his attacking archetype is just a peasant with a greatsword, his healing archetype spammable "thing" is giving +1 to saves vs poison, and etc

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your attacks are only sort of at Expert. Bestial Mutagen's bonus to hit is almost universally a full +1 to hit ahead of any other item bonus available.

That gives you a net of only -1 to hit as opposed to someone with Master and the same stats.

Let's examine level 13, where the average AC is 34. You'll have a total to-hit of +24 (+17 Proficiency +4 Str +3 Item). Someone with Master, a +2 weapon, and Str 18 has a +25 (+19 Level +4 Str +2 Item), it's true, but that's only one point ahead of you.

Assuming both went for three attacks, you, with Agile, would get +24/+20/+16 and they would get +25/+20/+15. I'm pretty sure the DPR on those two sets of numbers is nearly identical (they crit more on the first attack, so theirs will be a smidge higher).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Your attacks are only sort of at Expert. Bestial Mutagen's bonus to hit is almost universally a full +1 to hit ahead of any other item bonus available.

That gives you a net of only -1 to hit as opposed to someone with Master and the same stats.

Let's examine level 13, where the average AC is 34. You'll have a total to-hit of +24 (+17 Proficiency +4 Str +3 Item). Someone with Master, a +2 weapon, and Str 18 has a +25 (+19 Level +4 Str +2 Item), it's true, but that's only one point ahead of you.

Assuming both went for three attacks, you, with Agile, would get +24/+20/+16 and they would get +25/+20/+15. I'm pretty sure the DPR on those two sets of numbers is nearly identical (they crit more on the first attack, so theirs will be a smidge higher).

but you don't ahve "the same stats" since only rogues actually get to choose their respective attributes for their archetype.

your strength/dex will ALWAYS be lower due to starting at 16

using your example at level 13, the compared class will have a strength of 20 vs your 19

i already adresse3d that the +1 of the mutagen only covers your -1 on your attacking stat in the opening post and does nothing for the lower proficiency.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Starting with 16s is perfectly valid, you don’t have to have an 18 starting out to be functional.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Not everyone will always start with an 18, but okay, let's do a full analysis: What is your goal here? Is it just to rip people's faces off, or what?

Because if so there are several things you can do to get a lot better at that, though most involve some degree of multiclassing.

And that's because an Alchemist (especially a mutagenist) is much better at utility stuff and healing than, say, a Ranger (especially at high levels). They need something they're less good at, so raw combat numbers aren't quite on par...at high levels anyway.

You actually have the same Proficiency bonus on your attacks as a Ranger from 1st through 4th level and 7th level through 12th level. That's half the character's lifespan assuming you make it to 20th. And you also have some of the best buff 'spells' in the game for skills, especially at higher levels. Possibly the best, depending on what other options exist in your party.

Dark Archive

Pick up Feral Mutagen at 8 and you'll be getting a pretty sizable Item Bonus to Athletics and Intimidate, up to double the amount you can normally get from items, in addition to a +1 to hit and very strong natural attacks. Plus you're still an Alchemist with access to all the other alchemical items you might want, so you've got access to buffs that increase your versatility beyond the more martial classes. And there's also a couple good choices for mutagens you could combine with it at Level 13 for a more durable melee character (including one from Fall of Plaguestone, which is on the new Archives of Nethys database already). If you really want better melee damage feats, why not multiclass? Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk all provide good options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Not everyone will always start with an 18, but okay, let's do a full analysis: What is your goal here? Is it just to rip people's faces off, or what?

Because if so there are several things you can do to get a lot better at that, though most involve some degree of multiclassing.

And that's because an Alchemist (especially a mutagenist) is much better at utility stuff and healing than, say, a Ranger (especially at high levels). They need something they're less good at, so raw combat numbers aren't quite on par...at high levels anyway.

You actually have the same Proficiency bonus on your attacks as a Ranger from 1st through 4th level and 7th level through 12th level. That's half the character's lifespan assuming you make it to 20th. And you also have some of the best buff 'spells' in the game for skills, especially at higher levels. Possibly the best, depending on what other options exist in your party.

my goal is simple really, as i pointed above:

i want the combat focused archetype, that it's main focus is the combat as seen by what he gets from the archetype itself, to actually be good in combat.

i doubt anyone ever complained that the playtest mutagenist was "too stronk omg nerf" and yet we see a very big decline in his damage.

in fact, in the playtest alchemist was arguably one of the worst classes in the game. even WITH having higher "base" damage in his mutagen. And yet, he got nerfed, for no apparent reason.

so, yes, i would love if the mutagenist got master on unarmed to compensate for that loss
i would love chirurgeon being able to pick up any two level 1 non-bomb, non-mutagen , non-life elixirs as his persistentn alchemy
i would love persistent alchemy to actually be accessible much faster in order for alchemists not being relegated to "peasant with crossbow" for half their playtime until they reach level 7.
etc

in sort, i trully see current alchemist being in a MUCH worse position than pf1 crb rogue/fighter/monk ever was. (and i don't want to wait 5 years for "pf2 unchained alchemist" for the class to become good)


Ok well i slightly misread part of your initial post as I thought you meant nerfed from 1E rather than the playtest (which is also probably true but not as much of a like for like comparison). So apologies there

I don’t know what it was like during the playtest or what iteration you mean. For example I heard that original alchemist was reliant on resonance to the point of uselessness and didn’t get mutagen until level 6. So this seems better than that but that is clearly not what you are talking about

Others have tried to benchmark against others and shown that if you put a 16 in there you end up 2 behind. And there are entire threads that try to discuss how +2 shouldn’t break the game .

Also surely there is more that an mutagenist can do that makes just looking at raw combat numbers too limited? I understand it is their main thing but is it their only thing ?

And there may be some early errata - but I think those would be for typos and rules clarifications. I really don’t think it is going to be to change proficiency levels . Those seem to be hard coded

And I will say what I said on the wizard thread (but keep getting ignored because everyone prefers hypothetical arguments) - see if it is actually as bad when playing it. Because it just seems like you have seen “master” isn’t in the proficiency chart and then made this thread . I am sure there is more to it than that but perhaps gameplay will make a difference?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Ok well i slightly misread part of your initial post as I thought you meant nerfed from 1E rather than the playtest (which is also probably true but not as much of a like for like comparison). So apologies there

I don’t know what it was like during the playtest or what iteration you mean. For example I heard that original alchemist was reliant on resonance to the point of uselessness and didn’t get mutagen until level 6. So this seems better than that but that is clearly not what you are talking about

Others have tried to benchmark against others and shown that if you put a 16 in there you end up 2 behind. And there are entire threads that try to discuss how +2 shouldn’t break the game .

Also surely there is more that an mutagenist can do that makes just looking at raw combat numbers too limited? I understand it is their main thing but is it their only thing ?

And there may be some early errata - but I think those would be for typos and rules clarifications. I really don’t think it is going to be to change proficiency levels . Those seem to be hard coded

And I will say what I said on the wizard thread (but keep getting ignored because everyone prefers hypothetical arguments) - see if it is actually as bad when playing it. Because it just seems like you have seen “master” isn’t in the proficiency chart and then made this thread . I am sure there is more to it than that but perhaps gameplay will make a difference?

the abilities you gain as a mutagenist are that you get expert in unarmed, and on like level 11+ that you can have 2 mutagens up.

so yes, their abilities are focused purely on combat.

there 3 combat mutagens in the game, the ranged one that benefits mostly bombers, the bestial which is the mutagenists thing (unarmed combat), and a defensive one which is usually your second mutagen.
there are a few "skill" mutagens as well, but those are really tricky to use for a small bonus compared to their negative.

the penalties are really, really big, so it's not like "hey i got this thing to buff our temp hp" since "that thing" comes at the cost of a -2 on init, -2 on perception, and more importantly -2 to all will saves.

the rest of the penalties are equally large.

the thing with mutagens is that they offer +item bonuses but their penalties are untyped. So in most cases they end up being just +1 buff at the cost of really big drawbacks.

yes, you can give as an example the quicksilver mutagen to an archer, and he will get +1 to attack, but that +1 to attack comes at the cost of a big chunk of his hp and some other stuff.

i don't think that simply for a +1 there should have been any drawbacks at all persoanlly, but that's a seperate issue.

the issue of doing "other" stuff is the resource problem.

when your main thing is doing unarmed combat, you need to dedicate fully 6+ materials just for that alone, that's more than 1/3 of your total resources.

perpetual alchemy is a joke for all except the bomber (for who is just meh) exactly due to the item scaling.

when they are balanced around"get +1 compared to your progression but massive penalties for that +1" and perpetual is "item level 8 levels lower than you" then you have already surpassed the bonus, and you only have the drawback...


Lanathar wrote:
And I will say what I said on the wizard thread (but keep getting ignored because everyone prefers hypothetical arguments) - see if it is actually as bad when playing it. Because it just seems like you have seen “master” isn’t in the proficiency chart and then made this thread . I am sure there is more to it than that but perhaps gameplay will make a difference?

The problem with that approach is the game is really fun. (It seems funny to say that is a problem, but in this case it is.) When you play it, you kind of forget how weak you are because you're having a lot of fun. It's on the gm to say, "OK, I've got an alchemist, a wizard, and a druid, so I better go easy on them." Note: I haven't done a deep dive on the alchemist and druid yet, so I'm relying upon an assumption here that the alchemist is weak.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

the abilities you gain as a mutagenist are that you get expert in unarmed, and on like level 11+ that you can have 2 mutagens up.

so yes, their abilities are focused purely on combat.

Given that mutagens are the single best non-combat skill buff in the game with the possible exception of Heroism, and at high levels last longer, I find this assertion strange.


On a more serious note (do pardon my ascerbic tone earlier), you still can save a lot of money via Mutagen use, I THINK. Handwraps "have runes added and upgraded like normal weapons", so you could add only Striking runes and not Potency, UNLESS striking requires potency be to x level first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
On a more serious note (do pardon my ascerbic tone earlier), you still can save a lot of money via Mutagen use, I THINK. Handwraps "have runes added and upgraded like normal weapons", so you could add only Striking runes and not Potency, UNLESS striking requires potency be to x level first.

striking doesn't, property does though

tbf, if you go for the property runes, it isn't different than the playtest version, it just feels like an added punch to the gut to remove the inherent striking of the mutagen, it also kills it's usefulness as a buff potion for classes like monk and barbarian imo, the benefit is too little for them now compared to the negative.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most bonuses in this version of the game are incremental. There will be times where martials are at a higher proficiency, and other times where the alchemist will match them. There will be times where there stats are higher, but also times where they will be at odd values (19 for 5-10) thanks to the level system.

Compare a level 7 mutagenist to a level 7 ranger. The former is expert in his unarmed attacks (+11), can have 18 strength (+4), and gets a +2 item bonus. The latter is expert in his attacks (+11), can have 19 strength/dexterity (+4), and is most likely using a +1 weapon.

The alchemist is more accurate here, and gets a built in agile weapon. Some levels, the ranger will be more accurate. The point is that it isn't as simple as "they are ahead in stats" or "they get higher proficiency". Most bonuses are incremental and classes will have mini power spikes at various times putting them slightly ahead or slightly behind. In general though that doesn't mean classes are unviable or useless, even when they are the ones behind most classes will be comparable and bring unique options. Most of the time, the entirety of the difference between one class and another is within the range of a flat-footed penalty.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My thinking is that the alchemist - in any variety including mutagenist - shouldn't be better at fighting than the fighter. If it was, then the mutagenist would be overpowered. It would be eating the fighter's lunch.

The mutagenist should be more versatile and decent at nearly everything. Better than a bard at fighting; better than a fighter at sneaking; better than a barbarian at casting magical effects. Things like that.

They shouldn't be better than a fighter at fighting; better than a rogue at sneaking; better than a bard at social encounters; or better than a cleric at healing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:


They shouldn't be better than a fighter at fighting; better than a rogue at sneaking; better than a bard at social encounters; or better than a cleric at healing.

Has anyone even argued that though? I don't think anyone has asked for the alchemist to be better than everyone at everything.

Though, as an aside, I don't think your cleric example really fits there. Healing is just one small thing clerics can do, an alchemist who wants to heal should absolutely be competitive with them at the very least.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Has anyone even argued that though?
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Your attacks are only sort of at Expert. Bestial Mutagen's bonus to hit is almost universally a full +1 to hit ahead of any other item bonus available.

That gives you a net of only -1 to hit as opposed to someone with Master and the same stats.

Let's examine level 13, where the average AC is 34. You'll have a total to-hit of +24 (+17 Proficiency +4 Str +3 Item). Someone with Master, a +2 weapon, and Str 18 has a +25 (+19 Level +4 Str +2 Item), it's true, but that's only one point ahead of you.

Assuming both went for three attacks, you, with Agile, would get +24/+20/+16 and they would get +25/+20/+15. I'm pretty sure the DPR on those two sets of numbers is nearly identical (they crit more on the first attack, so theirs will be a smidge higher).

Apparently being only one point lower in attack bonus and having reasonably equivalent damage isn't sufficient to be called anything other than 'nerfed into oblivion'.

So yeah. The entire thread sounds like someone arguing that since the mutagenist alchemist isn't at the very least completely equal to a fighter at fighting, then it isn't worth printing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Has anyone even argued that though?
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Your attacks are only sort of at Expert. Bestial Mutagen's bonus to hit is almost universally a full +1 to hit ahead of any other item bonus available.

That gives you a net of only -1 to hit as opposed to someone with Master and the same stats.

Let's examine level 13, where the average AC is 34. You'll have a total to-hit of +24 (+17 Proficiency +4 Str +3 Item). Someone with Master, a +2 weapon, and Str 18 has a +25 (+19 Level +4 Str +2 Item), it's true, but that's only one point ahead of you.

Assuming both went for three attacks, you, with Agile, would get +24/+20/+16 and they would get +25/+20/+15. I'm pretty sure the DPR on those two sets of numbers is nearly identical (they crit more on the first attack, so theirs will be a smidge higher).

Apparently being only one point lower in attack bonus and having reasonably equivalent damage isn't sufficient to be called anything other than 'nerfed into oblivion'.

So yeah. The entire thread sounds like someone arguing that since the mutagenist alchemist isn't at the very least completely equal to a fighter at fighting, then it isn't worth printing.

This.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Has anyone even argued that though?
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Your attacks are only sort of at Expert. Bestial Mutagen's bonus to hit is almost universally a full +1 to hit ahead of any other item bonus available.

That gives you a net of only -1 to hit as opposed to someone with Master and the same stats.

Let's examine level 13, where the average AC is 34. You'll have a total to-hit of +24 (+17 Proficiency +4 Str +3 Item). Someone with Master, a +2 weapon, and Str 18 has a +25 (+19 Level +4 Str +2 Item), it's true, but that's only one point ahead of you.

Assuming both went for three attacks, you, with Agile, would get +24/+20/+16 and they would get +25/+20/+15. I'm pretty sure the DPR on those two sets of numbers is nearly identical (they crit more on the first attack, so theirs will be a smidge higher).

Apparently being only one point lower in attack bonus and having reasonably equivalent damage isn't sufficient to be called anything other than 'nerfed into oblivion'.

So yeah. The entire thread sounds like someone arguing that since the mutagenist alchemist isn't at the very least completely equal to a fighter at fighting, then it isn't worth printing.

Because cherrypicking the very best level for comparison and disregarding all abilities the other one has is somehow "fair comparison"?

Lol at you people.

In most levels you're at least -2 on attacks and that's with comparing everything that you can do, abilities you can pick, mutagens/buffs you have drunk, disregarding the action economy to do so

Vs an opponent that just picked up the weapon, no feats, no abilities applied.

I never asked them to be better than a fighter, but yes, I do expect them to at least have an equal attack roll as say a ranger (who will still trump the alchemist just by virtue of Hunter edge even if their attacks are equal) that can simultaneously craft equal quality snares and has a big bear on the side to help him.

If said ranger had 0 utility, or even equal accuracy/damage (again Hunter Edge is a thing) you could have a case, but that's not what's happening here.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I picked 13th pretty arbitrarily.

The best levels for (one sided, favoring the Alchemist) comparison are actually 1st-4th or 7th-9th, where the Mutagenist using Mutagen will have exactly the same bonus to-hit as any non-Fighter.

As for Feats and abilities...I applied none to either beyond, y'know, Mutagen.

Given all that, I feel like I'm not the one being disingenuous here, if anyone is.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

OP, do you factor the Feral Mutagen feat in your assessment?

It seems to give some boost to the bestial mutagen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I picked 13th pretty arbitrarily.

The best levels for (one sided, favoring the Alchemist) comparison are actually 1st-4th or 7th-9th, where the Mutagenist using Mutagen will have exactly the same bonus to-hit as any non-Fighter.

As for Feats and abilities...I applied none to either beyond, y'know, Mutagen.

Given all that, I feel like I'm not the one being disingenuous here, if anyone is.

Maybe you should have tried to then.

To put it simply, let's just assume that all the utility that an alchemist can bring from his feats is equal to that of a ranger (snares, scouting/Trapfinding, Monster identification, animal companions, etc, vs elixirs)

And we compare just the Mutagen with Edge. (no Hunter shot/twin takedown no nothing factored in)

Using your numbers we have:
25/22/19 vs 24/20/16

My question is indeed why?

If you look at the utility of elixirs and the utility of a ranger, it's about equal.

Same thing with the utility of a rogue (debuffs and rogue stuff)

And etc.

Why is the alchemist the only "mundane" class that lags behind?

And don't tell me that elixirs compare to Spells, because they simply don't.


You have not proven that Alchemist "lags behind". On the contrary, like all martial classes they've been shown to explicitly be ahead at certain levels. In fact, as mentioned above Alchemists may have an equal attack value from 1-3, a higher attack value from 7-8, and an equal attack value again at 9.

So compared to a Ranger, an Alchemist has an equal attack value for 4 levels, a better attack value for 2 levels, and a lower attack value for 4 levels. And that difference is literally either +1 or -1 when it exists at all.

Saying they are the only martial class that lags behind just isn't accurate. This isn't full BAB VS 3/4,the difference in attack bonus is always small and actually goes in the Alchemists favor at certain levels.

That small and variable a difference is not going to make or break a game. Feats are vastly more important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
manbearscientist wrote:

You have not proven that Alchemist "lags behind". On the contrary, like all martial classes they've been shown to explicitly be ahead at certain levels. In fact, as mentioned above Alchemists may have an equal attack value from 1-3, a higher attack value from 7-8, and an equal attack value again at 9.

So compared to a Ranger, an Alchemist has an equal attack value for 4 levels, a better attack value for 2 levels, and a lower attack value for 4 levels. And that difference is literally either +1 or -1 when it exists at all.

Saying they are the only martial class that lags behind just isn't accurate. This isn't full BAB VS 3/4,the difference in attack bonus is always small and actually goes in the Alchemists favor at certain levels.

That small and variable a difference is not going to make or break a game. Feats are vastly more important.

they are not the same at 1-3 or even at the other levels you mention:

level 1: both have the same starting bonus (ranger has 1 extra from stat, alchemist 1 extra from mutagen). Ranger deals d8/d6 alchemists deals d6/d4

so it's +7/+5/+3 for ranger
+7/+3/-1 for alchemist

he's already behind

+1 weapon is a level 2 item.

so, ranger at 2 has +4 from stat, +1 from weapon, +4 from proficiency for +9/+7/+5

alchemist at 2 has +3 from stat, +1 from mutagen/weapon, +4 from proficiency.
+8/+4/0

that's a -1/-3/-5 difference and the alchemist has to take -1 to AC and -2 on Reflex for that

level 3 they go to +2 attack and their damage dice becomes the same as the rangers (d8/d6) so they are now at 0/-2/-4

level 5

the alchemist gets to 18 in his main stat, but the Ranger gets +2 on his proficiency, so Ranger gets +1 ahead

level 6 nothing significant happens, ranger is still in the lead

level 7 is the only time alchemist gets over 1 on his first attack, but still significantly behind on 2nd/3rd attacks

level 9 ranger gets specialisation

level 10 ranger pulls even further ahead (+2 weapon becomes available, 20 strength)

level 11 alchemist still behind in attack (gets +1 from mutagen but previous level gave +2 to ranger) his weapon moves to 1 die higher than the ranger, but it's still much less than the specialisation bonus of the ranger

level 12, nothing important

level 13, ranger pulls even further ahead with master proficiency. Alchemist finally gets specialisation

etc

in basically all the levels, hunter is above, if not on the first attack, one the subsequent.

again, 0 feats, only the edge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Assuming the Ranger uses Hunt Prey, Hunted Shot, and Strike (with a longbow) and the Alchemist uses Quicksilver enhanced Acid Flask, Alchemist's Fire, and Bottled Lightning the Alchemist does more DPR at every single level except 20. Some times significantly more. The key thing to know is that splash damage is dealt even on a failure, but not on a critical failure. That means the Alchemist's second and even third attack still competes even with Hunt Prey enhanced MAP.

This is assuming 2 ticks of persistent damage. Technically the average would be 4 if we calculate the sum of the geometric series, but enemies can take actions for more chances and combat can finish off enemies before 3 rounds.

This is largely true even if we forego Calculated Splash, though I felt it was fair to compare 1 feat for 1 feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Starting with 16s is perfectly valid, you don’t have to have an 18 starting out to be functional.

I would think 16 int is probably fine especially for a mutagen focused person. Your mutagens are not going against any kind of DC so if your int is a smidge behind that is not really crippling and your mutagens mostly last from start to finish of most likely fights especially at lower levels.


Should also note that unlike PF1, PF2 splash damage is applied to the primary target as well as those within 5 feet of them. And with how weaknesses work can do significantly more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
And there's also a couple good choices for mutagens you could combine with it at Level 13 for a more durable melee character (including one from Fall of Plaguestone, which is on the new Archives of Nethys database already).

It atrually looks like the energy mutagen from The Fall of Plaguestone would not work with bestial mutagen (which is the topic of this thread):

Energy Mutagen wrote:
Whenever you score a hit with a melee weapon, add the listed amount of damage of the attuned energy type.

AFAIK unarmed attacks (which is what bestial mutagen provides) are never considered weapons. You'd also not be able to mix the two mutagens together until level 13th anyway which is pretty late.

Liberty's Edge

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.


You're SERIOUSLY doing Alchemist, and probably all tactical combat wrong if you think throwing 3 bombs a turn is ever a good idea.

Just curious, why do you say that? Do you think firing 3 arrows or attacking 3 times in melee is seriously wrong or because you think alchemist have better use of their 3rd action?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


As far as I can tell performing a normal Strike is just about the worst third action a melee martial can do. You want something that gets around the poor hit rate of that iterative (like Certain Strike) or do something else entirely (like Demoralize). Situation's even worse if you're using a limited resource...


it depends on the class too. Rangers can get their 3rd attack down to only a -4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flurry Rangers are a big exception to that, yeah. Though I'd consider that Edge to fit under column A as getting around the poor hit rate.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, bombs are limited use. Using them on -5 attacks is a little suboptimal, and using them on -10 attacks is flat out stupid.

As for Rangers being above Mutagen Alchemists on damage...well, yes. I'm not gonna spot check all your numbers shroudb, because that's pointless. Of course the Ranger is ahead. They're just not so far ahead as to make the Mutagen user useless, and the Mutagen Alchemist has so much better utility it's not even funny.

Just to start with, their DPR should not be figured alone, it should be figured combined with the DPR increase an Archery Ranger receives from Quicksilver Mutagen, for just one combat example of how mutagens make things better. But combat isn't my primary point as their non-combat buffs are spectacular.

For example, let's look at 6th level.

A Bestial Mutagen Alchemist will have +14/+10/+6 to hit (+8 Level +4 Str +2 Item), for 2d8+4 on the first, 2d6+4 on subsequent ones giving him a full round DPR vs. AC 24 (typical of 6th level foes) of 14.4.

A bow-using Ranger of the same level has +15/+11/+7/+7 using Hunted Shot to hit (+10 level +4 Dex +1 Item) for 2d8+1 damage each vs. an AC of 24 for a DPR of 16.5. But wait, let's add Quicksilver Mutagen for +1 to hit. That ups the Ranger's DPR to 19 (and will continue being a buff at, I believe, every level but 9th and 10th).

So the Ranger's DPR is 2.1 higher...but goes up 3.5 if the Alchemist makes enough Quicksilver Mutagens for them to use one per fight. So the Alchemist's DPR contribution is actually 17.9, and higher than the Ranger's.

Now, a melee Ranger would do more damage than an archery one (specifically, by my math, a total DPR of around 19.55), which remains higher than the Mutagenist, even including his buff to the Archery Ranger. But that's ignoring the Mutagenist's non-combat buffs (which were actually my main point here), ability to have a few bombs to trigger weaknesses (an important trick), and their ability to provide some quick healing if necessary.

And all that is at level 6, intentionally chosen because it's a poor level for the Alchemist in the comparison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That feels like the big shift that trips people up, doesn't it?

Alchemists are heavily tilted towards a strictly support role now, Mutagenist included.
With the removal of the "self only" limitations of 1e, mutagens become just another consumable you should probably hand a few of to your party. Or out of combat utility, which they just didn't do before.
It's quite a radical change and I don't love it (especially with the mutagenist base power somehow having missed the memo).

Still, going down to average combat potential with added versatility and utility is not an absurd choice. The debuff part seems good. If the buffing was better, we'd be ok. Vastly different than 1e, but ok.
There are clear, evident problems is need of errata with the Mutagenist, I certainly hope that's part of the early ones because the field needs it.
Maybe wait for them corrections, should they ever come, or barring that new mutagens?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not even sure that's a good answer, because even as 'strictly support' I feel like the alchemist has trouble stacking up.

Bestial mutagen is +1 to attack rolls and athletics checks in exchange to -1 to AC and -2 Reflex... and only to unarmed martials. That compares pretty poorly to stuff like inspire courage.

That said, yeah there's definitely a shift in focus. The alchemist works best as a dabbler and dedicated mutagenists or bombers really don't work like they do in PF1 even remotely. It's really more comparable to the 3.5 artificer (albeit much more limited) than the PF alchemist in terms of what you do with the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 130 << 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.