| 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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
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.
the familiar trick is usable once per combat as well.
Once per round.
|
|
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.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
Bestial Mutagen isn't the only Elixir in the book, look at the others.
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.
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.
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. |
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).
|
|
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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. |
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. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. |
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
Weird flex on the 1st level alchemist, but ok.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.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.