Alchemist doesn't feel fun at 1st level


Advice

101 to 150 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the buffs lasted for more than a minute or 10, and didn't have penalties, then they might seem more worth it. Only a few of the elixirs last an hour. So, you can quick alchemy your party some buffs that last a minute or 10 and do that maybe twice a day? That need an action or two to use. That's assuming you don't want to throw bombs or anything. The alternative is drinking a fruit smoothie of precognition for breakfast and prep exactly what your teammates will need that morning.

And after your buffs are done it's back to crossbow peasant time. Not even cool bomb crossbow, because you won't have any bombs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, compared to a Bard, an Alchemist doesn't buff as much. But the Bard uses one action per round to get his buff, while the Alchemist uses half a reagent per target beforehand.
A Barbarian will deal far more damage. But his first strike will come with a saving throw against poison. Poison that have been applied beforehand, no action, just half a reagent per fight.
The Barbarian will have a familiar in his pocket. For the price of one action, the familiar will take an Elixir of Life and give it to the Barbarian. One action Elixir of Life is as Efficient as 2-action Heal. But it's one action, big range, and only half of a reagent.

So, currently, you heal the main tank like half a Cleric, you have a free attack per fight per slashing/piercing weapon in your party, you buff your teammates, and... you still have 2 actions remaining.

In my opinion, you can't compare the Alchemist to other classes. The Alchemist is based on using multiple forms of help with a great action efficiency. Each of them is weak, but all of them can be pretty nice, in my opinion. At least, it's hard to compare to other classes. Saying the Alchemist is weak is impossible in the current state of knowledge.
But, I agree, at level 1, you don't have enough reagents to be effective. You'll have to wait until level 5 roughly to have fun.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
but if you compare what an alchemist alone offers and what the bard alone offers, support wise, the bard offers way more. And if you compare what a bard alongside an alchemist offers, again, the bard offers more.
Depends, since bards are spontaneous casters so they're offerings are exactly the same each rest whereas the Alchemist can have varying amounts, and just like spellcasters that will only grow as more alchemical items are introduced.
Quote:
that's why it's absurd to go "this one is good and stacks with this one that's bad" situation we have now.
It's an absurdity of your own doing. The Bard's Inspire Competence may be generally better for multiple levels, but that doesn't make the Alchemist bad. Just like the Fighter has higher Attack than other Martials, that doesn't make those martials bad.
Quote:
as for stacking, again, you don't penalize the ONE class, that's just absurd.

it's not penalized, the boosts are in line with what Inspire Competence does as you progress. And it has the advantage of not taking the Alchemist's action every turn to maintain and you don't have to stay within 60ft of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
but if you compare what an alchemist alone offers and what the bard alone offers, support wise, the bard offers way more. And if you compare what a bard alongside an alchemist offers, again, the bard offers more.
Depends, since bards are spontaneous casters so they're offerings are exactly the same each rest whereas the Alchemist can have varying amounts, and just like spellcasters that will only grow as more alchemical items are introduced.
Quote:
that's why it's absurd to go "this one is good and stacks with this one that's bad" situation we have now.
It's an absurdity of your own doing. The Bard's Inspire Competence may be generally better for multiple levels, but that doesn't make the Alchemist bad. Just like the Fighter has higher Attack than other Martials, that doesn't make those martials bad.
Quote:
as for stacking, again, you don't penalize the ONE class, that's just absurd.
it's not penalized, the boosts are in line with what Inspire Competence does as you progress. And it has the advantage of not taking the Alchemist's action every turn to maintain and you don't have to stay within 60ft of them.

one is at will the other is limited resource (as an exmaple, at level 3 or so, you may be able to buff the party for 2 battles all in all).

one buffs everyone the other buffs only 2 per reagent

action economy wise, one costs 1 action per round and is ranged, the other costs 2 actions per target per battle and is touch range (i'd say about equal there overall)

one offers +1 the other offers +1 and -2

there is a very clear distinction that points out that one is better than the other.

p.s.:

and that's comparing just a cantrip. If we also add the other contrips and spells that the Bard has on TOP of inspire courage, then it's just laughable.

If you spent 6 reagents to buff a party of 4 for 3 battles per day then you're pretty much empty. The bard still has ALL his spells and ALL his cantrips.

Plus, funnily enough, the Bard still has better martial proficiencies than Alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

Yes, compared to a Bard, an Alchemist doesn't buff as much. But the Bard uses one action per round to get his buff, while the Alchemist uses half a reagent per target beforehand.

A Barbarian will deal far more damage. But his first strike will come with a saving throw against poison. Poison that have been applied beforehand, no action, just half a reagent per fight.
The Barbarian will have a familiar in his pocket. For the price of one action, the familiar will take an Elixir of Life and give it to the Barbarian. One action Elixir of Life is as Efficient as 2-action Heal. But it's one action, big range, and only half of a reagent.

So, currently, you heal the main tank like half a Cleric, you have a free attack per fight per slashing/piercing weapon in your party, you buff your teammates, and... you still have 2 actions remaining.

In my opinion, you can't compare the Alchemist to other classes. The Alchemist is based on using multiple forms of help with a great action efficiency. Each of them is weak, but all of them can be pretty nice, in my opinion. At least, it's hard to compare to other classes. Saying the Alchemist is weak is impossible in the current state of knowledge.
But, I agree, at level 1, you don't have enough reagents to be effective. You'll have to wait until level 5 roughly to have fun.

you forget that bards have spells as well?

or do you think that everything, every single reagent spent, should be compared to just a 1 action cantrip that's a t will and you can do alongside your spells?

plus, lol at an elixir of life being as good as a Heal. A 2 action heal heals about 230-250% what an elixir of life heals. (3d6+6 vs 3d8+24 at 5 as an exmaple)

Actually Elixir of life is even worse than Soothe, the bard equivalent healing.

the familiar trick is usable once per combat as well. Want to add the Focus powers clerics have once per combat as well to compare?

and etc.

Everyone has "multiple sources of help" that they offer. Alcehmist actually has by far the worse action economy than everyone since he has 0 range and it costs 2 actions for only single target buffs/heals. And yes, "i don't spent an action but the fighter spends 2" is NOT an action economy saver.

I mean, do you think that if Bless was 1 action but also gave Slowed 1 for 1 round to the whole party it would be good?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
plus, lol at an elixir of life being as good as a Heal. A 2 action heal heals about 230-250% what an elixir of life heals. (3d6+6 vs 3d8+24 at 5 as an exmaple)

At higher level it gets closer to 200%. And that's what I say, 1 action for half the heal...

shroudb wrote:
you forget that bards have spells as well?

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the Bard just uses Inspire Courage, I say Inspire Courage uses one action.

shroudb wrote:
the familiar trick is usable once per combat as well.

Once per round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
shroudb wrote:
plus, lol at an elixir of life being as good as a Heal. A 2 action heal heals about 230-250% what an elixir of life heals. (3d6+6 vs 3d8+24 at 5 as an exmaple)

At higher level it gets closer to 200%. And that's what I say, 1 action for half the heal...

shroudb wrote:
you forget that bards have spells as well?

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the Bard just uses Inspire Courage, I say Inspire Courage uses one action.

shroudb wrote:
the familiar trick is usable once per combat as well.
Once per round.

nope.

in order for the familiar to use quick alchemy it needs to be in your space.

then it's 1 action to give two to the familiar, which would be "quick+move 25 ft to the barbarian"
followed by one action in the next round to give the potion to the bard and move back to you.

so, it's 2 actions AND 2 feats to be able to heal the barbarian.

And again:

A bard can buff and drop an aoe spell on the same round on the first round of combat. And it's be equally impactful as the alchemist having given mutagens to EVERYONE and poisoned the weapon of the barbarian, and having done everything else as well.

the difference is that the alchemist in question has to spent like 3-5 reagents to do all that, and the bard 1 spell.

p.s. how many reagents do you think an alchemist has?
at level 5 it's like 9. Let's say he's mutagenist, so he spents 4 of them for 12 mutagens that's last 3 combats. He now has 5.

in your example he uses poison on the barbarian, let's say 2 more reagents to open up with poison in those battles.

you also are healing the barbarian, let's say 4 heals, so 2 more ingredients.

Grats, you now have 1 reagent for Quick alchemy. And then it's crossbow time.

Meanwhile, the bard "buffs" as much as you at will with 1 action cantrip, can have 2 Soothes to substitute your Elixirs of life, he still has 2 spells +1 focus power for each battle, and he still has all his other 5 cantrips after that.

Silver Crusade

shroudb wrote:

one is at will the other is limited resource (as an exmaple, at level 3 or so, you may be able to buff the party for 2 battles all in all).

one buffs everyone the other buffs only 2 per reagent

action economy wise, one costs 1 action per round and is ranged, the other costs 2 actions per target per battle and is touch range (i'd say about equal there overall)

If you're gonna try and dissect it this far you need to compare everything rather than leave stuff out. Bard's Performances has to be maintained and only within 60ft. Alchemist Elixirs can be handed off to be drunk later.
Quote:
one offers +1 the other offers +1 and -2

Bestial Mutagen isn't the only Elixir in the book, look at the others.


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

one is at will the other is limited resource (as an exmaple, at level 3 or so, you may be able to buff the party for 2 battles all in all).

one buffs everyone the other buffs only 2 per reagent

action economy wise, one costs 1 action per round and is ranged, the other costs 2 actions per target per battle and is touch range (i'd say about equal there overall)

If you're gonna try and dissect it this far you need to compare everything rather than leave stuff out. Bard's Performances has to be maintained and only within 60ft. Alchemist Elixirs can be handed off to be drunk later.
Quote:
one offers +1 the other offers +1 and -2

Bestial Mutagen isn't the only Elixir in the book, look at the others.

i'm using an average, and i did take into account that the one is 1 action per round vs the 2 actions (even if distributed before hand) per target per battle. Even if "pre-drawn you'd still need 1 action to drink and an interact to grab whatever is normally in your hand, be it a shield, two hander, or whatver else you have on your hand in battle.

on a party of 4, that's an average of 8 actions for the buffs when the combat starts, as opposed to 1 action/round.

And i still told that i do think that's the only aspect that they are about equal.

the penalty is always -2 and the bonus on average is +1, be it on skills, ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, and etc.


shroudb wrote:
in order for the familiar to use quick alchemy it needs to be in your space.

Quick alchewhat? Ho, that. Well, I forgot about it. It's totally useless anyway.

So, your familiar with Climber and Manual Dexterity goes on the Barbarian (it's one bulk, I think the Barbarian can handle that). And then, during the fight, it's one action to get an Elixir from the Barbarian's pouch (or his one, I don't think a DM will scream if your Familiar carries a few Elixirs), and one action to feed the Barbarian. Rince, repeat.
1 Action per round and one feat, and you now heal like half a Cleric on the main frontliner with long range and a low reagent cost.

shroudb wrote:
A bard can buff and drop an aoe spell on the same round on the first round of combat.

The Alchemist can buff, and heal, and poison, and drop a bomb and he still has one action left. The Bard can just buff and drop an aoe spell, too bad for him.

shroudb wrote:
Grats, you now have 1 reagent for Quick alchemy. And then it's crossbow time.

As I said above, the Alchemist is a perfect class for multiclassing. So, it's not crossbow time, it's spellcasting time, or whacking time, or whatever time you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Yes, compared to a Bard, an Alchemist doesn't buff as much. But the Bard uses one action per round to get his buff, while the Alchemist uses half a reagent per target beforehand.

...and the target spends an action to get the benefit (probably two, since they have to retrieve the item from their belt).

Silver Crusade

shroudb wrote:
on a party of 4, that's an average of 8 actions for the buffs when the combat starts, as opposed to 1 action/round.
Which again conveniently ignores that you can have both.
Quote:
the penalty is always -2 and the bonus on average is +1, be it on skills, ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, and etc.

Eagle-Eye Elixir does not have a penalty. Only Mutagens carry penalties.


Draco18s wrote:
...and the target spends an action to get the benefit (probably two, since they have to retrieve the item from their belt).

Mutagens last ten minutes at level 3, and you can get a few of them. The goal is to buff beforehand.

And when you get to level 11, it's a one-hour buff, so at that point, you get buffed before combat.

If you are surprised, you can't be buffed, that's true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
shroudb wrote:
in order for the familiar to use quick alchemy it needs to be in your space.

Quick alchewhat? Ho, that. Well, I forgot about it. It's totally useless anyway.

So, your familiar with Climber and Manual Dexterity goes on the Barbarian (it's one bulk, I think the Barbarian can handle that). And then, during the fight, it's one action to get an Elixir from the Barbarian's pouch (or his one, I don't think a DM will scream if your Familiar carries a few Elixirs), and one action to feed the Barbarian. Rince, repeat.
1 Action per round and one feat, and you now heal like half a Cleric on the main frontliner with long range and a low reagent cost.

shroudb wrote:
A bard can buff and drop an aoe spell on the same round on the first round of combat.

The Alchemist can buff, and heal, and poison, and drop a bomb and he still has one action left. The Bard can just buff and drop an aoe spell, too bad for him.

shroudb wrote:
Grats, you now have 1 reagent for Quick alchemy. And then it's crossbow time.
As I said above, the Alchemist is a perfect class for multiclassing. So, it's not crossbow time, it's spellcasting time, or whacking time, or whatever time you want.

everyone is aa "perect class for multiclassing" if we see it this way.

the base class, as you used his abilities, will have nothing to do than using a crossbow with the same proficiencies as a sorcerer.

the same bard, will do ALL the above, and still have 3 spells for each combat. Without multiclassing. Which he can as well, and get equal amount of value out of it since the bonuses of multiclassing are universal.

Again, 4 poisons per day and 2 Heals per day and a +1 cantrip. At level 5. Is what he gets according to your comparison.

And with worse action economy to boot.


shroudb wrote:
everyone is aa "perect class for multiclassing" if we see it this way.

Bard is an extremely bad class for multiclassing. Every round, you use one action for Inspire Courage and 2 actions to cast a spell. And you need high Charisma which is used by very few classes besides casters (and multiclassing into Sorcerer is kind of more of the same thing).

On the other hand, Alchemist has a lot of available actions per round he can use on his multiclass actions, like casting spells or using a sword. He doesn't get much out of a high Intelligence score and can live with a 16 or even a 14 without too much damage to his combat abilities, and as such can invest in a 14-16 in the other class main attribute, both to get the Dedication Feat prerequisite and to be efficient. Perfect class for multiclassing.

I've played support classes for ages during organized play. A 15th level Bard in Living Greyhawk (80 adventures to get there), an 11th level Bard in PFS, a 7th level Skald, a 6th level Envoy in SFS. I've read the PFS2 Bard, and this is no "support class" to me. Too much incentive on spells, and Inspire Courage having to be cast every round (I have tested this type of gameplay with the Envoy, and it's no fun to me).
The Alchemist, on the other side, is what I expect from a support class: Lots of ways to help, a good action economy. I'll play an Alchemist in PFS2. Maybe it's not as good as Bard, but I'm sure I can get something out of it. Anyway, not all classes can be "as good as the others". But I think the Alchemist is far from being underwhelming.


frolic wrote:


Alchemist seems tailor-made to multiclass though. Much like spellcasters, Alchemists will get much stronger with splat bloat.

General question: is there any use at all for intelligence if you multiclass into alchemist other than meeting the prerequisite?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
General question: is there any use at all for intelligence if you multiclass into alchemist other than meeting the prerequisite?

I don't think so. The only class DC you use are on poisons, but you need a level 10 feat for that. And if you multiclass, you don't even have extra reagents.

Even for a full-on Alchemist, Intelligence is of low value. You can play one with 12 in Intelligence without issue once you get enough reagents to last for a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
"SuperBidi wrote:
Too much incentive on spells

I'm not sure what that has to do with someone not being supporty. Supporting the party through magic is pretty normal even.

Quote:
Inspire Courage having to be cast every round

I also think you're kind of overstating this. Since spells are two actions it's not that hard to slot IC into your turn. Though if you are worried about action economy, lingering performance can pretty reliably make it last most/all of a fight.

Quote:
The Alchemist, on the other side, is what I expect from a support class: Lots of ways to help, a good action economy.

I don't think the alchemist is necessarily bad, but "good action economy" is absolutely not one of its strengths. The class is slow and often forces their teammates to use up their own actions.

Xenocrat wrote:


General question: is there any use at all for intelligence if you multiclass into alchemist other than meeting the prerequisite?

A level 8 MC alchemist could take a feat to make the splash damage on his bombs int based.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails, and with a level 1 feat use their core skill performance to intimidate. Or they could make a bow/sling shot or whatever for that 3rd action. And they can do that forever, no slots or focus used. Plus they get spells and the usual cantrips.

That is sickening compared to what an alchemist can do. That is the kind of "this is cool and fun" stuff that is missing from the alchemist, instead of having to use non-core abilities to do things like trip and intimidate because your attacks are lame. Heck, we can't even use our core ability score (int) for any attacks.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
That is sickening

Luckily Alchemists make Antipoison.

Unless you get it from food poisoning *shrugs*


Squiggit wrote:
I'm not sure what that has to do with someone not being supporty. Supporting the party through magic is pretty normal even.

Full casters don't have a supporting role. At some point, people expect a bit more from an Archmage than Haste and Heroism.

Squiggit wrote:
Though if you are worried about action economy, lingering performance can pretty reliably make it last most/all of a fight.

Lingering Performance is one extra action and you get it up to 3 actions on average... It doesn't look overwhelming to me. Instead of 1 action per round, you use 2 actions every 3 rounds.

Squiggit wrote:
I don't think the alchemist is necessarily bad, but "good action economy" is absolutely not one of its strengths.

The class is badly written, I agree. There are multiple traps, with very bad action economy. But there are a few very good action economy moves, and in my opinion these are the ones you need to rely on to properly play the Alchemist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Lingering Performance is one extra action

It's a free action. You can't combine it with other free action abilities, but it's not eating into the rest of your turn.

Quote:
The class is badly written, I agree. There are multiple traps, with very bad action economy. But there are a few very good action economy moves, and in my opinion these are the ones you need to rely on to properly play the Alchemist.

Mutagens are nice from an action economy standpoint, especially at higher levels when you can prebuff them more efficiently, but a lot of in combat stuff is difficult to manage compared to what other classes do.


Squiggit wrote:
It's a free action. You can't combine it with other free action abilities, but it's not eating into the rest of your turn.

True, my bad. So, yes, it's a bit better. It makes it playable in my opinion.

Squiggit wrote:
Mutagens are nice from an action economy standpoint, especially at higher levels when you can prebuff them more efficiently, but a lot of in combat stuff is difficult to manage compared to what other classes do.

Poisons and Mutagens are not supposed to eat combat actions.

Elixirs of Life can be used with 1, 2 or 3 actions. They are competitive if you use them with 1 action, bad otherwise. It's only once per round, though.
Bombs have an accuracy issue. Throwing 3 bombs in a round is a very bad move. But throwing one is a very good one: You have honorable accuracy, and if you hit you deal damage and apply a condition without a saving throw. And all of that with just one feat, and no need to buy a magic weapon. So, once again, a 1-action move that is worth using.

In my opinion, the best way to play the Alchemist is to rely on these types of actions. They are limited in that you can't use your three actions on any of them. But each of them is very competitive.
So, bombers, mutagenist or healer Alchemists are bad (and that's the main complain about PF2 Alchemist, you can no more make specialized Alchemists). But bombers, mutagenist and healer Alchemists are good :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an entirely random sidenote.
I sort of wish that Quick Alchemy's later class effect, when you can make mroe than one item, instead wouldn't cost two reagents and instead would just cost the normal 1 for two.

I feel like that would help the Alchemist extend over the course of the day.
though i'm sure there would be problems with that ooccuring. But it would make more "in the moment to the situation" utility far more usable and less painful.


Aricks wrote:
Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails,

That's a 2nd level ability, requires a feat investment, and it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails,
That's a 2nd level ability, requires a feat investment, and it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit.

You undersell the ability quite a bit:

It's a DC 20 performance check and even failure counts as a success.

At level 3 you already have +11 so you can't actually critically fail any more.

So it's always minimum success.

At level 7 you have +17 so there's already a good chance to give +3

By level 11 you have +22 already (more with items) so two out of three times you give, with 1 ranged action, +3 to all skill checks and +1 the rest of the times.

At 15 it's guaranteed +4.

The fact that you're effectively expert/master/legendary with all and every skill check for Aid, and that you always use your main stat for Aid is well worth the 1 level 2 feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to be honest, as the alchemist currently stands I can't see myself ever going full alchemist. The class is just not built to rely on its own resources and abilities on the long run, so you'd better mix it up.
Wanna be a bomber? Go Ranger Dedication, you could even get Improved Far Lobber (Far Shot at level 8) and Improved Quick Bomber (Quick Draw at level 4) out of it. Of course the main point would be to rely on those nice Crossbow feats the Ranger has once your resources run dry. Hell, despite it normally costing you one interact action to grab a bomb you could still use stuff like Hunter's Aim with them if you really need that +2 to attack. Plus you can get running reload, which means you even get a free movement action when you reload that crossbow, which means movement to your allies to apply elixirs.

As an Chirurgeon I'd probably go with a very similar approach - grab those high mobility ranger options (Running Reload at 8, Skirmish Strike at 12) and apply those Elixirs. Not sure what else I'd do as a Chirurgeon, its perpetuals are sadly far too situational to really get use out of. I'm really disappointed in this.

As a Mutagenist I'd first have to come up with a build that overcomes my MADness, so I'll probably drop Int to at least 16, if not even 14. They really should have added Strength as a key ability score option here, currently it really seems like a trap. Having Finesse on the Bestial Mutagen attacks would've been great for less MADness aswell. But realistically I don't even want to use the Bestial Mutagen anyways, the defensive drawbacks seem too big too me (even moreso once the AC gets reduced to -2). Instead I'd grab a single one handed weapon and grab corresponding fighter feats so you get some utility in your attacks. Only at the point where you can use both Bestial and Juggernaut mutagens would I switch to those. Too bad your saves suck now, eh?

Edit: To actually make a point here: I feel that to actually play a mediocre alchemist it requires far more effort than to to play a good any other class. The class has quite a few trap options, options which are plain worse than other classes and sometimes even glaring bugs (try holding 3 alchemic items in your hands... or your one hand if you use any weapon at all). To me it seems like they gave the alchemist a once over after the playtest and whoever was supposed to check if the class made sense at that point just dropped the ball. Sorry to say that the alchemist is the only, clearly exceptional class in this book and not in a good way.


shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails,
That's a 2nd level ability, requires a feat investment, and it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit.

You undersell the ability quite a bit:

It's a DC 20 performance check and even failure counts as a success.

At level 3 you already have +11 so you can't actually critically fail any more.

So it's always minimum success.

At level 7 you have +17 so there's already a good chance to give +3

By level 11 you have +22 already (more with items) so two out of three times you give, with 1 ranged action, +3 to all skill checks and +1 the rest of the times.

At 15 it's guaranteed +4.

The fact that you're effectively expert/master/legendary with all and every skill check for Aid, and that you always use your main stat for Aid is well worth the 1 level 2 feat.

Weird flex on the 1st level alchemist, but ok.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails,
That's a 2nd level ability, requires a feat investment, and it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit.

You're correct, it's 2nd level, and you'd have to pick another muse to use performance for intimidation. So, at 2nd level you could do a cha based intimidate and the two buffs, forever. An alchemist can throw a smoke bomb and only if he uses quick alchemy, and one of the two lvl 1 feats doesn't even work for it.

Wow.


Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails,
That's a 2nd level ability, requires a feat investment, and it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit.

You undersell the ability quite a bit:

It's a DC 20 performance check and even failure counts as a success.

At level 3 you already have +11 so you can't actually critically fail any more.

So it's always minimum success.

At level 7 you have +17 so there's already a good chance to give +3

By level 11 you have +22 already (more with items) so two out of three times you give, with 1 ranged action, +3 to all skill checks and +1 the rest of the times.

At 15 it's guaranteed +4.

The fact that you're effectively expert/master/legendary with all and every skill check for Aid, and that you always use your main stat for Aid is well worth the 1 level 2 feat.

Weird flex on the 1st level alchemist, but ok.

What?

That's inspire Competence, the ability you dissed.

At will 100% +1 on any skill from level 3.

And giving on average +3 to any ally skill at will on 11 is pretty good.


shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails,
That's a 2nd level ability, requires a feat investment, and it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit.

You undersell the ability quite a bit:

It's a DC 20 performance check and even failure counts as a success.

At level 3 you already have +11 so you can't actually critically fail any more.

So it's always minimum success.

At level 7 you have +17 so there's already a good chance to give +3

By level 11 you have +22 already (more with items) so two out of three times you give, with 1 ranged action, +3 to all skill checks and +1 the rest of the times.

At 15 it's guaranteed +4.

The fact that you're effectively expert/master/legendary with all and every skill check for Aid, and that you always use your main stat for Aid is well worth the 1 level 2 feat.

Weird flex on the 1st level alchemist, but ok.

What?

That's inspire Competence, the ability you dissed.

Giving on average +3 to any ally skill at will with an action on 11 is pretty good.

I dissed his comparison of that "1st level" bard ability to the 1st level alchemist. I don't know why you're focusing on mechanical analysis of the CRB instead of reading comprehension in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Wow, I hadn't looked at a bard yet. They can, at level one and in one round, buff all their allies attacks +1, buff a specific ally at range with Aid and it never fails,
That's a 2nd level ability, requires a feat investment, and it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit.

You undersell the ability quite a bit:

It's a DC 20 performance check and even failure counts as a success.

At level 3 you already have +11 so you can't actually critically fail any more.

So it's always minimum success.

At level 7 you have +17 so there's already a good chance to give +3

By level 11 you have +22 already (more with items) so two out of three times you give, with 1 ranged action, +3 to all skill checks and +1 the rest of the times.

At 15 it's guaranteed +4.

The fact that you're effectively expert/master/legendary with all and every skill check for Aid, and that you always use your main stat for Aid is well worth the 1 level 2 feat.

Weird flex on the 1st level alchemist, but ok.

What?

That's inspire Competence, the ability you dissed.

Giving on average +3 to any ally skill at will with an action on 11 is pretty good.

I dissed his comparison of that "1st level" bard ability to the 1st level alchemist. I don't know why you're focusing on mechanical analysis of the CRB instead of reading comprehension in this thread.

I focused more on the

"it can still fail on a critical failure roll. And until level 15 it's the same fairly low (but consistent) aid bonus as usual unless you roll a legitimate crit"

Which was incorrect since you can't crit fail from 3 and you get fairly high and consistent bonus from like 7+ and not 15.

P. S.
Yes, the level 1 comparison was irrelevant, I agree.
On the other hand though, with just 5 reagents on the 1st level, there isn't really a comparison to begin with...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

I don't see them as worse, they have different areas and utilities.

"You make 2 equivalent "moderate ones"." That's not really possible since the bonus goes from 1 to maybe 2 and maybe 3.

If the bonuses weren't stackable then all groups would be worse off if some players wanted to play a Bard and an Alchemist.

An Alchemist does not require a Bard to contribute or to function.

The obvious solution to this is that Alchemists and Bards should be able to diversify their roles - every other class can make something other than what is expected of them their primary role. A cleric can make a pretty good frontline DPR or blaster character with the right deity choice, a Fighter can go with a 1-handed weapon and make their main goal laying down debuffs for other characters to exploit. If you want to play a particular class but that class's Thing is already well covered by the existing party members, most classes can do something else.

Dawnflower Dervish Bards are something that can potentially come later, but the Alchemist already has the "rip your face off" option built into its chassis. The fact that said option doesn't make the Alchemist good enough at ripping faces off for that to be his primary objective is concerning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess the take away is that if you want a buff debuff class don't take alchemist, since a bard can do the same job for no materials cost. Sure, there's an action cost but so do alchemists and no side effects either.

So, at low level, say 1 to 3, what is an alchemist supposed to be? Besides a skill monkey and crossbow peasant. You're not doing any job another class can't do better, and you can't do multiple jobs due to the infused reagent limit.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

I strongly disagree, as I believe I've mentioned before. Mutagens are a great buff. Yes, they're Item bonuses, but they're a point higher than any other item bonus in the game almost universally. So even on people with maxed out items (which is in no way everyone) they provide a meaningful buff. Sure, there are downsides, but they're still very useful under the right circumstances.

Bombs, I'd need to do some more DPR math on, but I believe people here are somewhat underselling them as well.

I think the fact that bombs do damage even on a miss probably adds up more than people expect especially once you get calculated splash. Also I think people are underestimating how nasty persistent damage can be. If they do nothing it probably is going to get at least a couple rounds of damage done and maybe more. If the enemy tries to shut that damage down early it is costing them actions doing nothing but attempting to deal with the persistent damage.

So one way you are getting a fair amount of action free damage every round or you are giving the enemy a big action debuff. Every action enemies are wasting trying to stop the acid from melting them is an action they can't use to attack you or your party.

Poisons seem good but lacking a poisoner focus dedication are a bit tricky to use. They are a great buff if you prepoison some weapons for your main combatants with the best chances to hit during downtime.

I think one of the biggest future strengths for alchemists are going to be buffing elixirs. Right now there just are not that many of them due to space constraints. But at mid level these things last an hour+ with no concentration or action cost. The fall of plague stone already is showing a number of new mutagens and elixirs so I can only imagine what we are going to get in the bigger actual supplement books.


kaid wrote:
I think the fact that bombs do damage even on a miss probably adds up more than people expect especially once you get calculated splash. Also I think people are underestimating how nasty persistent damage can be. If they do nothing it probably is going to get at least a couple rounds of damage done and maybe more. If the enemy tries to shut that damage down early it is costing them actions doing nothing but attempting to deal with the persistent damage.

Also, unlike PF1, enemy combatants seem much more likely to be up for several rounds instead of killed by the fighter or wizard before they take burn damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
I think the fact that bombs do damage even on a miss probably adds up more than people expect especially once you get calculated splash. Also I think people are underestimating how nasty persistent damage can be.

It's VERY hard to estimate how useful persistent damage will be as 'Assisted Recovery' is totally into DM fiat territory: The Dm is free to modify number of actions and chance to remove from the normal DC15 to automatic.

As to damage on a miss, that depends a lot on positioning as it can add up on PC's too if you're not a bomber and for actual substantial miss damage you're going to need an extra feat Calculated Splash and bombers are pretty tight on free feats: Enduring Alchemy, far lobber, quick bomber, Smoke Bomb, Debilitating Bomb, Directional Bombs, Sticky Bomb, Expanded Splash, Greater Debilitating Bomb... I see no guarantee that a bomber is going to get it or get it quickly.

If we're going to say persistent damage and splash damage are why people are "underselling them", we're going to have to take a specific bomb build with a specific DM's rulings to figure that out.


graystone wrote:
The Dm is free to modify number of actions and chance to remove from the normal DC15 to automatic.

The DM is free to modify anything in the whole book ever. Not sure why that stops us from using the baseline assumptions as a baseline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bomber in general is the only alchemist build that can potentially work.

Mutagenist and especially Chirurgeon are in much worse dire straits.

Probably because those 2 don't get class features (mutagenist level 1 feature does 0 until level 7, perpetual is trash tier for both) and there's like 1 superspecialised feat per Mutagen and 1-2 for healing in total...

As for bomber, you no longer can exclude allies, so, there will be more times than not that you'll just be using single target attacks.

Persistent, even without assistance, drops off 30% of the time, so we can expect around 3 rounds of it on average.

The damage is nothing to write home about for a limited resource. The only saving grace for bomber is inflicting light debuffs at will (instead of doing good damage) after level 7.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
graystone wrote:
The Dm is free to modify number of actions and chance to remove from the normal DC15 to automatic.
The DM is free to modify anything in the whole book ever. Not sure why that stops us from using the baseline assumptions as a baseline.

Because the rules[baseline assumption] is written as DM fiat? Rule 0 is far different from the rule coming out and saying "(as determined by the GM)" and "The GM decides how your help works". Persistent damage rules go out of their way to let you know it could/should change on a whim. DC, actions and even duration are all up in the air. From my perspective, you need a specific Dm to form a baseline. I can't take a theory crafted, in a vacuum, baseline that ignores explicit rule expected Dm fiat and then expect that to be relevant to whatever game I join.


shroudb wrote:

Bomber in general is the only alchemist build that can potentially work.

Mutagenist and especially Chirurgeon are in much worse dire straits.

In my opinion, you make a mistake, which is to consider that bombers, mutagenists and chirurgeons exist. Whatever the specialization you choose, you're expected to do exactly the same thing, with subtle nuances. A bomber will have nearly the same number of each alchemical items at the beginning of the day than a Chirurgeon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Bomber in general is the only alchemist build that can potentially work.

Mutagenist and especially Chirurgeon are in much worse dire straits.

In my opinion, you make a mistake, which is to consider that bombers, mutagenists and chirurgeons exist. Whatever the specialization you choose, you're expected to do exactly the same thing, with subtle nuances. A bomber will have nearly the same number of each alchemical items at the beginning of the day than a Chirurgeon.

no, not really.

while each uses everything, the paths offer some great benefits for bomber and ziltch/very limited for the rest:

take perpetual as an example:

perpetual bombs mean: a) you can finally use all those Additive feats without running out of reagents in 1 battle
b)you have at will debuffs.

perpetual for Chirurgeon means... nothing. To be more precise, it means "+2 reagent compared to a non-chirurgeon that crafts antivenoms for his whole party" It makes absolutely no difference since antivenom already lasts like 6+ hours

Bomber at 1 gets expanded splash. Mutagenist at 1 gets LITERALLY nothing, since the only benefit he gets is at 7 level when he gets the expert proficiency.

And etc.

The 3/day crafting is also quite vital.

if you haven't played an alchemist in the playtest, you can't really understand how tight the reagents are. Due to the lack of cantrips, the alchemist usually runs out of them long before the casters run out of spells.

the new focus rules will give even further edge to the caster.

so that 3/reagent is really important for your "role", getting as much as a full extra battle for a normal bomber compared to nont being a bomber but a chirurgeon throwing bombs. Or not even have close to enough elixirs of life to "main heal" a party if you're not a chirurgeon.

Again:

you do use all 3 things regardless of what path you choose. But claiming that they don't matter is the same as saying "bard and fighter are equal in fighting, they both roll attack rolls and can use weapons".


graystone wrote:
From my perspective, you need a specific Dm to form a baseline.

That's a good practice in general, considering that so many GMs handle so many details of the game differently. Ultimately everything in any game is going to be heavily at the mercy of table variance.

Doesn't change the fact that the book lists a baseline DC though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sorta feel like maybe paths in general were a mistake for the alchemist.

Like, in principle they're this cool idea but in practice they actually don't change the class that much. SuperBidi is right in that a chirurgeon isn't meaningfully different enough from the baseline alchemist that you can be a dedicated healer... and as written the paths might confuse new players into thinking that's not the case.

With how niche antiplagues and lesser mutagens are, maybe the Alchemist would be better off if they just got all of the specialization bonuses at once. It's not like giving a bomber expert with unarmed and some small bonuses to healing potions would break the game anyways.


I quite agree with you that they are not the same. Stating that Chirurgeon is bad in a game where you can have only 3 skills to Legendary and Chirurgeon gets a free one is in my opinion a very quick judgment.

Also, Perpetual Bombs is far from overwhelming. If you want to play a pure Alchemist, I agree with you. But it's not hard, thanks to multiclassing, to get some at will attack/spell/power that will use your actions as much as low level bombs do.

So, yes, a Bomber is not precisely a Chirurgeon. But they are too close to even bother about the distinction.

Edit: I was answering to Shroudb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think at this point alchemists are stuck playing a lousy hand for early levels and people will struggle along or abandon the class.

I'm going to try pre-poisoned arrows until level 4. At least when I miss with them I can retrieve and re-use most of them after a fight. I don't like the chances of failed fort saves but again, best use of a lousy hand.

Elixirs and mutagens seem lacking at low level due to low duration and side effects. Bombs are meh until calculated splash at 4. I'd love to use the bomb crossbow but since I'll be playing PFS and it's uncommon I'll never see it.

So, poisoned arrows, recall knowledge, and low-probability intimidate and distraction actions is it until 4 when bombs start to be actually worth throwing.


Squiggit wrote:

Sorta feel like maybe paths in general were a mistake for the alchemist.

Like, in principle they're this cool idea but in practice they actually don't change the class that much. SuperBidi is right in that a chirurgeon isn't meaningfully different enough from the baseline alchemist that you can be a dedicated healer... and as written the paths might confuse new players into thinking that's not the case.

With how niche antiplagues and lesser mutagens are, maybe the Alchemist would be better off if they just got all of the specialization bonuses at once. It's not like giving a bomber expert with unarmed and some small bonuses to healing potions would break the game anyways.

I think the Class paths were a great idea, because Alchemists were already segmented like this in PF1 (well not chirgeon, but mutagenist/bombers).

The problem is they just don't matter.

If you compare them to other Class paths classes get, which radically change the way you would play the class, they look weak by comparison.

I know it's probably too late, but I feel like the Class is going to be needing a fair amount of changed material (or just straight up better Class Feats/Paths). Maybe a bonus Hefty Hauler and a few other level 1 benefits could put them on par though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

I quite agree with you that they are not the same. Stating that Chirurgeon is bad in a game where you can have only 3 skills to Legendary and Chirurgeon gets a free one is in my opinion a very quick judgment.

Also, Perpetual Bombs is far from overwhelming. If you want to play a pure Alchemist, I agree with you. But it's not hard, thanks to multiclassing, to get some at will attack/spell/power that will use your actions as much as low level bombs do.

So, yes, a Bomber is not precisely a Chirurgeon. But they are too close to even bother about the distinction.

Edit: I was answering to Shroudb.

while you do use craft for medicine.

a chirurgeon is forced to raise BOTH either way, since every upgrade to treat wounds, both in the base action (heal amount) and in the skill feats (number of targets), goes off Medicine level.

A chirurgeon without maxed medicine is equally good as every other character since the DC caps for trained medicine either way, so you hit it regardless if you use wisdom or Int for the roll.

as you pointed out, in a game with only 3 skills, this is actually detrimental to a Chirurgeon who has now to spend 2/3 of them for treat wounds.

and again, they are not even remotely close.

the perpetual bombs vs "perpetual antivenom lol" are MILES apart.

without perpetual bombs you simply cannot afford to use any Additive feat, that's a huge game changer.

just compare: one has 3 bombs per reagents and all the debuffs are free. The other has 2 bombs per reagent and he must use those for the debuffs AND the debuffs are way worse. There's no comparison.

Again, for the other 2 specs, the bonuses are really trivial, so unless for some godawful reason you decide to mainheal with an Alchemist, in which case you need Chirurgeon 3 elixirs/reagent or else you will never have enough healing, then you always pick bomber.


swoosh wrote:
graystone wrote:
The Dm is free to modify number of actions and chance to remove from the normal DC15 to automatic.
The DM is free to modify anything in the whole book ever. Not sure why that stops us from using the baseline assumptions as a baseline.

Even if the DM makes the DC low when assisted it still means one enemy is spending actions to assist or the guy on fire is spending actions to put himself out or douse himself with water. Just the action cost alone is pretty damn strong even that is all you get from it.


@SuperBidi

Which of the three Alchemist paths will you play? I ask because you seem to have a different view on the Alchemist than most. Also, tone doesn't go over well over the internet, but I'm not trying to be patronizing.

1 to 50 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Alchemist doesn't feel fun at 1st level All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.