|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You know what would be cool? If they gave all alchemists the "bombs can do no splash" ability, because honestly the odds of a chir or mutie ever throwing a bomb is even less without that. Bombers would get the ability like that bomb crossbow, the option of infusing X pieces of ammunition with a bomb. Kinda like the old grenadier ability or the bomb crossbow. Especially since anyone can use that crossbow if they wanted.
That would be cool.
On a side note how often do paizo staff reply on these forums? I see lots of questions but no official answers. A "we recognize alchemists at low level have issues" or "it's all within design parameters stop whining" would be helpful.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
What really grates me is that the perpetual infusion situation for Mutagenist and Chirurgeon isn't even salvageable with errata due to it being ingrained in the class progression. If instead of the perpetual infusion being ingrained into the classes chassis we'd instead get 5 Discoveries we could just replace those not very useful perpetual infusions with something else for Mutagenist and Chirurgeon. Instead we now have the situation where each single Alchemist is forced to have perpetual infusions, unless they take an archetype that replaces them. In my opinion they designed themselves into a corner with this class feature.
swoosh wrote: Doesn't change the fact that the book lists a baseline DC though. Well sure and then makes sure to tell you that's it's not really the default at all... The actual default a variable: it's worse than normal table variance as the rule goes out of it's way to suggest that DM fiat is the way to go.
kaid wrote: 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. The dm can toss out the DC altogether and just say it works. As to actions, it might not as the Dm can rule how many it take , and what actions it requires, so the DM might have an unrelated action cover it. Things like "healing that restores you to your maximum HP to end persistent bleed damage, or submerging yourself in a lake to end persistent fire damage" can fulfill the actions so something as simple as a heal, something the enemy might do anyway, or movement [like through a square with any water in to] can be the action, again something they might have done anyway.
Bottom line, neither actions wasted or any DC needed are guaranteed so basing anything on a set DC15 seems like it'll skew results into being higher than it will when actually played with different DM's in different games. Tables variety is built in and should be factored in.
Aricks wrote: 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. Be careful, RAW, you can't, as you are supposed to poison a weapon. Especially if you play PFS2, you may fall on a DM who applies this rule precisely.
shroudb wrote: 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. You're right, I missed that...
I really find the Chirurgeon first level ability is just badly written. It looks so good at first sight... and so disappointing when you look into details because you still have to raise Medicine to get the most out of it.
MongrelHorde wrote: Which of the three Alchemist paths will you play? I ask because you seem to have a different view on the Alchemist than most. We are mostly fighting with Shroudb ;) There are lots of different positions on the Alchemist.
In fact, I haven't decided yet. I was thinking Chirurgeon, but Shroudb just showed me a big issue with it's first level ability. But I won't choose Bomber, as I had a Bomber Alchemist in PF1 and I ended up disliking him because of being very repetitive.
I will certainly go for a very support oriented Alchemist. Poisons, Elixirs, plus a few options from other classes (I'm thinking Druid Dedication for Animal Companion and a Wild Shape).
I kinda wonder how many of my issues with the alchemist are fixed by just having a familiar run around delivering elixirs. Is there anything stopping you from giving your monkey a bag to hold your pre-made alchemical items in so he can run around force-feeding them to your allies as needed?
Arachnofiend wrote: I kinda wonder how many of my issues with the alchemist are fixed by just having a familiar run around delivering elixirs. Is there anything stopping you from giving your monkey a bag to hold your pre-made alchemical items in so he can run around force-feeding them to your allies as needed? Nothing is stopping you, actually lots of things is encouraging you in doing so, as it's the best way to get something out of Elixirs of Life.
Still, you can only give 2 actions per round to your Familiar, so it's limited.
SuperBidi wrote: Aricks wrote: 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. Be careful, RAW, you can't, as you are supposed to poison a weapon. Especially if you play PFS2, you may fall on a DM who applies this rule precisely.
shroudb wrote: 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. You're right, I missed that...
I really find the Chirurgeon first level ability is just badly written. It looks so good at first sight... and so disappointing when you look into details because you still have to raise Medicine to get the most out of it.
MongrelHorde wrote: Which of the three Alchemist paths will you play? I ask because you seem to have a different view on the Alchemist than most. We are mostly fighting with Shroudb ;) There are lots of different positions on the Alchemist.
In fact, I haven't decided yet. I was thinking Chirurgeon, but Shroudb just showed me a big issue with it's first level ability. But I won't choose Bomber, as I had a Bomber Alchemist in PF1 and I ended up disliking him because of being very repetitive.
I will certainly go for a very support oriented Alchemist. Poisons, Elixirs, plus a few options from other classes (I'm thinking Druid Dedication for Animal Companion and a Wild Shape). apart from our fighting, if you want to try Alchemist, trust me when i say that the Bomber is actually by far the least repetitive and the most flexible one.
because you actually gain usable stuff from your Perpetual Alchemy, it means you have much more freedom in what you actually spend your reagents for.
Additionally, it feels like half the feat+ are basically made for Perpetual bombers and bombers in general, so by locking yourself out of those, you lose options and thus lose even more flexibility as well.
always imo.
So just spitballing an idea, haven't done any math, but I feel like it would make the Alchemist a bit more enjoyable/competitive.
Move Perpetual down to 1st level. For Bombers get rid of the no splash damage option, it is garbage, and instead give them the ability Alchemists could get in PF1 and the Playtest, where their bombs don't effect their allies. Have the formulas Perpetual grants scale equivalent to the highest level alchemical item the Alchemist can make.
For Bombers maybe give them the two picks as it currently is, gaining more options as they level, or just straight up let them use it with any of the Bombs they know. As they level give them either an option to make multiple bombs as a Quick Alchemy action, or give them the ability to make and throw a bomb as the same action, depending on if two or three bombs per round would be more desirable.
For the Mutagenist you could either give them the two picks for Perpetual as it currently stands, with gaining more as they level, or just let them do any they know. Limit their Quick Alchemy/Perpetual mutagens to only work on themselves, so if they want to hand them out they have to use reagents during daily prep. As they advance maybe give them some special class features or feats that give them extra benefits when under the effects of their own mutagens, and maybe give them the option to create and imbibe two mutations as part of the same action?
For the Chirgueon. Well that one is more difficult, definitely move Perpetual down to 1st again, but adding in actual Healing to the at will mix might be too much, unless they can only use it on their self. This is one where a larger focus on non Perpetual Quick Alchemy could be useful. Have the at will antiplauges and antidotes, but give them the ability to maybe make Elixirs and then throw them at an ally, possibly with an aoe ally only heal as they level, eventually getting that max heal effect. Let them use Quick Alchemy heals more cost effectively, effecting more targets, making more elixirs, doing it from range, etc.
I am actually a bit surprised there is no Poisoner Research Field. If one made these changes you could probably make a Poisoner Research Field who could Perpetual Quick Alchemy to poison their weapon as an action then attack. Later gaining the ability to either poison two weapons, or have the poison last for more than one hit, or gain the ability to create a poison, poison the weapon, then strike with it all as the same action so all their own attacks would be poisoned.
One of the things these changes would bring would let the Alchemist actually contribute at their supposed research field without running out of resources, being rather inferior to other classes at what their research field is supposed to specialize in, or similar issues some of us have. It would hopefully make each Research Field actually feel different. It would also mean that they could use most/all of their Reagents at the beginning of the day to either make stuff their Research Field doesn't specialize in, or in making stuff to hand out to the party.
shroudb wrote: apart from our fighting, if you want to try Alchemist, trust me when i say that the Bomber is actually by far the least repetitive and the most flexible one.
because you actually gain usable stuff from your Perpetual Alchemy, it means you have much more freedom in what you actually spend your reagents for.
Additionally, it feels like half the feat+ are basically made for Perpetual bombers and bombers in general, so by locking...
Thanks for the advice, but as you may have noticed, I'm quite stubborn :)
Also, I think not choosing Bomber has advantages. First, you have more Reagents for other things than Bombs (as I won't need 8 Reagents worth of them, if I follow your list on the other thread).
And Bomber asks for a lot of feats to be fully effective. I want my Familiar and Druid Dedication will give me cantrips and solve as quickly as level 2 the "peasant with a crossbow issue" ;)
I like the synergy between Wild Shape and Mutagenist, as Wild Shape uses unarmed proficiency, with an extra +2 added. So, you can quite keep up with the really nasty guys in your party when you decide to get enraged.
Also, as I'll play PFS2, I'm only targeting levels 1-12, so I can have fun with Animal Companions before they get too bad and I can't wait for my number of reagents to grow.
Maybe will we speak in a year about our respective Alchemists and compare our experience :)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
SuperBidi wrote: I want my Familiar and Druid Dedication will give me cantrips and solve as quickly as level 2 the "peasant with a crossbow issue" ;)
I'm not sure if attack cantrips are a solution to the "peasant with a crossbow issue" unless you go with an int caster. Druid keys of Wisdom, so both their Spell Attack Rolls (spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties) as well as their cantrip damage are dependent on their Wisdom score. So it's yet another Stat you may need to increase, plus the Archetype feats for Expert/Master Spellcasting to keep up your proficiency. So not exactly cheap to do.
Aricks wrote: the option of infusing X pieces of ammunition with a bomb. Kinda like the old grenadier ability or the bomb crossbow. Especially since anyone can use that crossbow if they wanted.
I mean any alchemist (well any player actually) can do this with an Alchemical Crossbow https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=473 Does not give any splash or status effect sadly though. But that could make for an interesting feat. Gain access to the uncommon weapon Alchemical Crossbow. In addition when using it, you can fire a shot using all 3 charges and it acts as if it was thrown on that target (damage, splash, debuff) but does not effect anything else. Which would end up nifty for bombers. Quick Perpetual bomb+interact load +fire. reloading the arrow would be a problem but this would be a fairly neat combootherwise.
Additionally, it doesn't care what level the bomb is. So as an alchemnist you could downtime craft plenty of lv 1 bombs just to target elemental weakness with this, while preserving your infused reagents for tools, or high level bombs, or candy for others.
Multiclass folks can spend 1 feat to get Class x2 amount of reagents for lv 1 stuff. Any bombs of which they make they can use for this crossbow to target elemental weakness.
I honestly super love it. And really makes dipping into Ranger feel even better for my alch builds. Though I gotta say I still love ranged trip with aklys... but the xbow is more consistant and affords more ability combinations.
Zwordsman wrote: Aricks wrote: the option of infusing X pieces of ammunition with a bomb. Kinda like the old grenadier ability or the bomb crossbow. Especially since anyone can use that crossbow if they wanted.
I mean any alchemist (well any player actually) can do this with an Alchemical Crossbow https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=473 Does not give any splash or status effect sadly though. But that could make for an interesting feat. Gain access to the uncommon weapon Alchemical Crossbow. In addition when using it, you can fire a shot using all 3 charges and it acts as if it was thrown on that target (damage, splash, debuff) but does not effect anything else.
Additionally, it doesn't care what level the bomb is. So as an alchemnist you could downtime craft plenty of lv 1 bombs just to target elemental weakness with this, while preserving your infused reagents for tools, or high level bombs, or candy for others.
Multiclass folks can spend 1 feat to get Class x2 amount of reagents for lv 1 stuff. Any bombs of which they make they can use for this crossbow to target elemental weakness.
I honestly super love it. And really makes dipping into Ranger feel even better for my alch builds. Though I gotta say I still love ranged trip with aklys... but the xbow is more consistant and affords more ability combinations.
Myself, ranger multiclassing into alchemist is what I'm looking at: Hunter's Edge [Precision] + Crossbow Ace + alchemical crossbow + alchemist multiclass looks pretty good.
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's pretty clear from all the different threads that, not even 2 weeks after the release, PF2 alchemists already need a Pathfinder Unchained to fix them...
Its not ideal.. but ultimately its my favorite class in the book and the one I've played the most in my (very limited) time with P2.
Persistent damage can be rather fun.
So I thoroughly enjoy Alchemist, but I do think they need a few changes. but I also only have played bombers. (even if I'm building a poison user, or an item supplier). Since I don't get high enough for Churri's max heal and have no interest in mutigen focus. So getting 3 bombs per reagent lets me make far more othe items with having a few trick debuffs.
I think a fair bit will work itself out as they ooffer more research fields in later materials, and more feats (since a fair few have a hard time competing against Dedication lines).
The alchemist's chassis feels relatively fine, most things will work ou with research fields.
I'm somewhat certain they'll come out with a Grenadier research field sometime soon. and likely a Toxicant.
Ultimately. I love that I got an item based debuff/buff/weakness targeting class. But I am biased in that, that's literal favorite build design in any games.
graystone wrote: Myself, ranger multiclassing into alchemist is what I'm looking at: Hunter's Edge [Precision] + Crossbow Ace + alchemical crossbow + alchemist multiclass looks pretty good. That sounds super fun. I' mweird in that I'd probably pick up Snares so I could (someday someway) set up a kill zone of snares to snipe into.
I've written up how I'd change the Bomber and Chirurgeon Research Fields, feel free to comment on the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sV-H-NdOIEuqHbd303sNPV1iLjv77KPzlOO_Cx- hX9I/edit?usp=sharing
Smugmug wrote: SuperBidi wrote: I want my Familiar and Druid Dedication will give me cantrips and solve as quickly as level 2 the "peasant with a crossbow issue" ;)
I'm not sure if attack cantrips are a solution to the "peasant with a crossbow issue" unless you go with an int caster. Druid keys of Wisdom, so both their Spell Attack Rolls (spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties) as well as their cantrip damage are dependent on their Wisdom score. So it's yet another Stat you may need to increase, plus the Archetype feats for Expert/Master Spellcasting to keep up your proficiency. So not exactly cheap to do. Alchemists have a low will save, so raising wis would be a good idea. And if he's going with a ranged build, all you really need is dex, wis, and int for reagents. Then maybe a point or 2 into str or con.
Sure you may not rival the wisdom of a full class druid, but if you start with a 14 and raise it at lvs 5 and 10, then compared to someone who started with an 18, you'll only be behind by +1. And if that druid started with a 16 wis instead, you won't fall behind until lv15. But you won't even reach that point in PFS.
Smugmug wrote: I've written up how I'd change the Bomber and Chirurgeon Research Fields, feel free to comment on the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sV-H-NdOIEuqHbd303sNPV1iLjv77KPzlOO_Cx- hX9I/edit?usp=sharing Says file not found.
Ryuujin-sama wrote: Smugmug wrote: I've written up how I'd change the Bomber and Chirurgeon Research Fields, feel free to comment on the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sV-H-NdOIEuqHbd303sNPV1iLjv77KPzlOO_Cx- hX9I/edit?usp=sharing Says file not found. No clue why that happened, I fixed it right when you posted. In any case here it is again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sV-H-NdOIEuqHbd303sNPV1iLjv77KPzlOO_Cx- hX9I/edit?usp=sharing
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote: Also, I think not choosing Bomber has advantages. First, you have more Reagents for other things than Bombs (as I won't need 8 Reagents worth of them, if I follow your list on the other thread).
And Bomber asks for a lot of feats to be fully effective. I want my Familiar and Druid Dedication will give me cantrips and solve as quickly as level 2 the "peasant with a crossbow issue" ;)
While I agree with you, I honestly think even if you don't care about bombs at all bomber is still a really compelling choice. Even with no feat investment the ability to create perpetual bombs you can use at-will to exploit weaknesses or apply debuffs is a lot more compelling to me than what the other two options get.
Obviously, expert in unarmed is really good if you're going to leverage it though, so anything playing around with that should probably grab mutagenist, but outside of that bomber's utility feels the most ubiquitously useful to me.
Plus. your fighter or rogue or ranger or.. quite a few others honestly. Might love a few free bombs a day for throwing at folks.
Squiggit wrote: While I agree with you, I honestly think even if you don't care about bombs at all bomber is still a really compelling choice. Even with no feat investment the ability to create perpetual bombs you can use at-will to exploit weaknesses or apply debuffs is a lot more compelling to me than what the other two options get. Well, Perpetual Infusions comes at level 7, and gives you access to 3 gp bombs. If what you want is targetting weaknesses and applying flat-footed condition, for 100 gp you get 30 bombs. If you don't plan on taking feats to improve the bombs, you can completely ignore Perpetual Infusion before the level 17 improvement where you finally get access to expensive ones.
And I don't argue with the comparison between what Bomber gives and what the other 2 give. I honestly think that all 3 are not very interesting and that it's a feature you can ignore without too much impact on your overall efficiency.
Squiggit wrote: Plus. your fighter or rogue or ranger or.. quite a few others honestly. Might love a few free bombs a day for throwing at folks. Clearly. Unfortunately, Rogues are not trained in Bombs... As they would really love it. But giving Bottled Lightning to your Ranger so he starts his round by applying Flat Footed before crippling the enemy with arrows sounds interesting to me :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
100gp on level 7 is a huge chunk of money...
A full level 5 item is like 100-150gp
In general I feel consumables need to get around 50-60% discount to be even remotely viable.
I mean, now, they are like "would you want 5 healing potions OR the very best weapon for your level?"
Kinda defeats their purpose when they feel like each consumable you drink is worth 1/5th of a full item of your level...
It's a third of a level 7 item for 30 bombs (more than you will need for at least 2 levels).
And if you have quick bomber, you can throw them in one action instead of 2 actions with Perpetual Infusion.
So, if with a third of the price of an item I get something better than a class feature, I tend to consider this feature nearly useless :)
Without feats, Bomber's Perpetual Infusion is not worth it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Starting at 7 you only have 1 6th and 2 5th items. Spending one of those 5th items for just 30 at will one use "cantrips" seems really wasteful. I mean, but a staff and get spells per day AND at will infinite cantrip...
As for being worthless feature without feats... Well, 2 at will conditions with some minor (for that level) damage is about as much as 2 cantrips imo. 2 cantrips are about a class feat.
So the feature, for the bomber, is equivalent to a class feat imo.
Nothing really mindbogling powerful, but not dead feature as well.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The idea of handing elixirs to an alchemical familiar and having that familiar run around the battlefield, handing out elixirs, is going to be terribly dashed the moment the fragile familiar gets swatted down, leaving a bunch of elixirs on the ground.
I am having a tough time seeing what alchemists are actually supposed to do, particularly those mutagenists who try to fight with bestial mutagens.
Spend a free action to release a hand from a two-handed weapon. Spend an action to draw an elixir. Spend an action to drink the elixir. Spend a third action just to place the hand back on the two-handed weapon. The action economy for mid-combat elixir usage is horrific, unless there is something I missed about these rules. As for bandoliers, they allow the instant draw only with tools.
shroudb wrote: Starting at 7 you only have 1 6th and 2 5th items. Spending one of those 5th items for just 30 at will one use "cantrips" seems really wasteful. I mean, but a staff and get spells per day AND at will infinite cantrip...
As for being worthless feature without feats... Well, 2 at will conditions with some minor (for that level) damage is about as much as 2 cantrips imo. 2 cantrips are about a class feat.
So the feature, for the bomber, is equivalent to a class feat imo.
Nothing really mindbogling powerful, but not dead feature as well.
Flawed premise anyway, debilitating bombs only work with quick alchemy. So not only can it not be used with bombs made from infused reagents it also doesn't work for downtime crafted stuff. Until you get perpetual bombs you won't even use that feat. Unless you want to burn one of your 10 reagents at 6th level to make a 1d6 bomb that gives a status effect for one round. Assuming you hit that is.
shroudb wrote: 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. I found a way to get around the first issue: Natural Medicine. Now, you raise Crafting and Nature and the only thing you don't have are the feats (which is quite annoying, but the most interesting part of Treat Wounds is Battle Medicine).
Colette Brunel wrote: The idea of handing elixirs to an alchemical familiar and having that familiar run around the battlefield, handing out elixirs, is going to be terribly dashed the moment the fragile familiar gets swatted down, leaving a bunch of elixirs on the ground. It's another way of healing, taking damage instead of someone else.
Considering that Familiars have your AC and quite a bunch of hit points + Juggernaut mutagen if you are really paranoid, I don't think it's a good thing to target a Familiar.
Colette Brunel wrote: Spend an action to release a hand from a two-handed weapon. Spend an action to draw the elixir. Spend an action to drink the elixir. Spend a fourth action, on the next turn, just to place the hand back on the two-handed weapon. The action economy for mid-combat elixir usage is horrific, unless there is something I missed about these rules. For 2 handers, it doesn't work at all. But it works with Bows, casters (as long as they don't use their both hands), some light weapon users don't use their both hands (like Rogues), Sword and Board, Rangers with Quick Draw and a Doubling Rings for example. Quite a lot of people are able to drink your Elixirs in 2 actions.
Edit: Drink, and give. If your two hander is taking too much damage, the Ranger next to him can heal him. So, as long as your party is coordinated, it can work.
But, clearly, in a non coordinated party, Alchemist serves not much purpose.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A familiar has exactly 5 hit points per level. That is not quite much.
A fair few characters want to use both of their hands. You bring up rangers, but crossbow rangers and two-weapon rangers have their hands metaphorically tied, as an example. Quick Draw is competing with, say, a multiclass dedication.
A champion likely needs healing, due to drawing enemy fire, but probaby has their hands tied.
There is simply less fuss in having, say, a cleric around.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aricks wrote: shroudb wrote: Starting at 7 you only have 1 6th and 2 5th items. Spending one of those 5th items for just 30 at will one use "cantrips" seems really wasteful. I mean, but a staff and get spells per day AND at will infinite cantrip...
As for being worthless feature without feats... Well, 2 at will conditions with some minor (for that level) damage is about as much as 2 cantrips imo. 2 cantrips are about a class feat.
So the feature, for the bomber, is equivalent to a class feat imo.
Nothing really mindbogling powerful, but not dead feature as well.
Flawed premise anyway, debilitating bombs only work with quick alchemy. So not only can it not be used with bombs made from infused reagents it also doesn't work for downtime crafted stuff. Until you get perpetual bombs you won't even use that feat. Unless you want to burn one of your 10 reagents at 6th level to make a 1d6 bomb that gives a status effect for one round. Assuming you hit that is. i wasn't talking about debilitating.
bombs on their own, with 0 feats, have debuffs.
Colette Brunel wrote: A familiar has exactly 5 hit points per level. That is not quite much.
A fair few characters want to use both of their hands. You bring up rangers, but crossbow rangers and two-weapon rangers have their hands metaphorically tied, as an example.
5 hit points per level is half a character's hit points pool. I prefer to drop a Wizard than a Familiar.
Two-weapon fighters have one hand tied. They use Doubling rings.
Also, it's three action for a two hander, as Release is a free action.
Cleric is the way to go if you want a proper healer. Alchemists are secondary healers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Familiars lack hit points from ancestry and Constitution modifier.
If alchemists are secondary healers, then what does, say, a chirurgeon actually do?
Colette Brunel wrote: If alchemists are secondary healers, then what does, say, a chirurgeon actually do? Specialities are no specializations. A chirurgeon is not a healer, he's an Alchemist. So, Chirurgeon drops bombs, craft poisons and uses elixirs like any other Alchemist.
The absolute best build for a 1st-level alchemist that I can devise is a human with Versatile Heritage (for Armor Proficiency), Unconventional Weaponry (for an ogre hook), Chirurgeon, and Alchemical Familiar (for getting a familiar to run around with elixirs of life, as fragile as the familiar can be). The character wears a breastplate, swings around an ogre hook for damage and trips, and tosses out the occasional heal.
This is a janky build, yet it still seems to be among the best that a 1st-level alchemist can achieve.
1st level Alchemists are quite bad. In my case, it'll be a bad moment to go through before finaly having something to do at second level.
About healing, in fact, I think Alchemist is better than we can think.
Alchemist VS Cleric, the confrontation !
Cleric can use 2 types of Heal:
1 action, melee range, for 1d8 (4.5) every 2 levels, 1 spell/healing font used.
2 consecutive actions, 30 feet range, for 1d8 + 8 (12.5) every 2 levels, 1 spell/healing font used.
I don't count the 3-action heal as it's very specific. Also, the fact that it targets enemies as much as allies makes it hard to use at low level.
Alchemist can use 2 types of Heal:
1 action, max 1 per round, familiar range, for 1d6 + 3 (6.5) every 2 levels, 1 alchemical item used.
2 non-consecutive actions, melee range, for 1d6 + 3 (6.5) every 2 levels, 1 alchemical item used.
On average, characters have 9 hit points per level, 18 every 2 levels.
So, the 1 action heal from the Cleric is plain bad. Both in healing per action and in healing per resources used.
The 2 action heal is healing 2/3 of a character hit points on average. Considering that you have to roll dice, you need to wait for a character to be under 25% hp to be sure you won't overheal. It's a lot. So, Clerics are clearly emergency healers. Most of the time, you won't need such big healing on one character.
The 1 action and 2 actions heal for the Alchemist are healing 1/3 of a character hit points. It's far more in line with what you expect from a "basic" heal, and should be sufficient to maintain someone in the middle of the fight. In case of emergency, you can use your 3 actions to heal 1/3 of 2 characters hit points, with the same ressource efficiency. It's the same than a 2 action heal from a Cleric.
So, in a standard fight, the Alchemist is supposed to heal enough. The Cleric will have hard time healing, in fact. Either he keeps his Divine Font for healing, and will overheal a lot, or he casts low level heal spells, which also means that he sacrifices a part of his spell list for heal spells.
In terms of "total healing", a healing specialized Cleric will have 14 or 16 starting Charisma. At level 5, he will have 4-5 Divine Font. A Chirurgeon will have 9 reagents and use at least 3 of them for Elixirs of Life. It's equivalent. If he wants to heal more, the Cleric needs to sacrifice spell slots, while the Alchemist needs to sacrifice reagents. If the Cleric sacrifices all of his highest spell slots, he will gain 2-3 heals. The Alchemist needs to sacrifice 2 reagents for that amount of healing. Also, every level, the Alchemist gains 1 reagent and every four levels, all his Elixirs get better, so it's a quadratic progression. The Cleric gains far less potential heal per level, as it's roughly a linear progression. At high level, the Alchemist will be the sustained healer.
Also, once he gets Combine Elixir and Greater Field Discovery, the Alchemist's 2 action heal triples it's healing (for 6 times its reagent cost). In terms of action efficiency, it's really great, and makes the Alchemist a very good single target emergency healer.
The Cleric, on his side, will have easier time with 3-action heal, he will stay the best choice for multi target healing.
One important point is that Elixir of Life increases every 4 levels. This lack of granularity is really annoying at low level, until you get Combine Elixir.
So, pros and cons:
Cleric pros:
- Multi target healing, especially at high level.
- Specialized healers have a lot of healing right at level 1.
- Emergency healing.
Cleric cons:
- Non specialized healers will have few heals at low level.
- Sustainability.
Alchemist pros:
- Sustainability at average and high levels.
- Single target emergency healing at high levels.
Alchemist cons:
- Low levels.
- No option for multi target healing.
- Lack of granularity when gaining access to Elixirs of Life.
So, at low level, you don't want an Alchemist as dedicated healer. But, in my opinion, they start to shine and be potential concurrent at level 9.
shroudb wrote: Aricks wrote: shroudb wrote: Starting at 7 you only have 1 6th and 2 5th items. Spending one of those 5th items for just 30 at will one use "cantrips" seems really wasteful. I mean, but a staff and get spells per day AND at will infinite cantrip...
As for being worthless feature without feats... Well, 2 at will conditions with some minor (for that level) damage is about as much as 2 cantrips imo. 2 cantrips are about a class feat.
So the feature, for the bomber, is equivalent to a class feat imo.
Nothing really mindbogling powerful, but not dead feature as well.
Flawed premise anyway, debilitating bombs only work with quick alchemy. So not only can it not be used with bombs made from infused reagents it also doesn't work for downtime crafted stuff. Until you get perpetual bombs you won't even use that feat. Unless you want to burn one of your 10 reagents at 6th level to make a 1d6 bomb that gives a status effect for one round. Assuming you hit that is. i wasn't talking about debilitating.
bombs on their own, with 0 feats, have debuffs. Fair enough. I honestly don't consider the default bomb debuffs to be worth much except acid and lightning. Throwing a level 3 moderate thunderstone at a equal level caster at level 10 hoping for a failed dc20 fort save for deafened is going to be an exercise in frustration.
I also came to a conclusion today. The wonderful infinite debilitating bombs that looked so fun at level 7 are effectively -2 to hit.
Burning infused reagents for quicksilver mutagen brings you back up to "normal" for 10 minutes per 0.5 reagent, plus -2 to fort saves and 14 hp of damage.
Awesome /s.
Edit: misread, its -1 and quicksilver is +1 till lvl 11.
If you were using perpetual for debuff, one should invest in Debilitating Bomb. Those Debuffs are at Class DC. even on a lv 1 bomb.
If you're investing in Perpetual Infusions for base debuffs. its probably a fair idea to invest in the feat Powerful Alchemy (I think its called that).
Its the one that lets anything yo u Quick Alchemy use your Class DC.
That said, only one is truly DC vs Debuff, one is DC vs remove debuff. Two are persistent damage, two are on hit application.
Acid's persistent, Alch fire's persistent are flat check removal.
lightning and frost vial are on hit, no check
As you mentioned. Thunderstone is DC vs Debuff. So it may not work.
Tanglefoot bags also have a DC. However--it applies on hit. Meaning it stays in effect until they can take an action to fix it. 3 actions (them or another character). Or an Escape Check pg 470. Which is 1 action, with the attack trait. meaning it'll cause MAP, or be subject to MAP. At the last they'll use an action to remove it (either at MAP, or causint MAP).
Granted persistent damage isn't strictly a debuff.. but I'll count the DOT that requires a lucky flat check, or spending actions a debuff as it adds pressure.
thunderstone aren't something I'd choose for perpetual, but you can raise the DC if one wishes. Tanglefoot isn't a terrible choice as it'll slow them, or eat an action (At the cost of 2 of your actions however). Though the crit is fun. It can be useful if you can throw far, or hit a flyer (more so with crits).
My go to perpetual are likely Lightning-because it help applies. maybe Acid. or Frost. or possibly tanglfoot (Mutagen for item bonus + Ranger dedication for long range to slow down incomin enemies and create a trickle effect. Pretty corner case though).
Realistically though I"ll have debil bomb feat. So lightning and ice are fairly likely. Becausue I'll have made Acid Flask, tangle foot at my level. I want enough persistent acid damage to make them consider wasting turns or be punished. And I want the Item bonus on tanglefoot for crit hopes.
====
Edit the -2 "at level' for pereptual is one reason I really wish that Alchemists increased Bomb Profiency up to Legendary.
Also because well... I want them to be the Alchemical Lords baically.
or at least get masters in bombs. It would help their "cantrip" simulacrum keep up in the To Hit.
Though mutagen does help at least, and it'll be easiser to splice in once you get higher in level.. up to that poin will suck a bit.
Just getting in to P2E and was confused by some of the initial conversation of this thread. There was a lot of talk about only using a few bombs per encounter and never hitting. This confused me a bit because, as I understand, you can make as many bombs as you have money for that last till you use them outside of your special creation abilities that /are/ limited. After taking a look at the pre-gen he has a +6 to hit according to the sheet which appear to be on par with most of the other 1st pre-gens supplied. Is there a too hit penalty on bombs that I missed? Sorry of these are dumb questions just got a little lost at the start.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darksyde wrote: **omitted for length** Well this discussion is mostly about low level. (at higher levels its a bit easier to bomb often when you can make 3 for 1 reagents, or get infusion bomber) (I also won't cover the to hit portion cause I don't know much about that. Other than at low levels it is prtety dice dependent so you can get real unlucky and they're 1 try hit or miss gone)
Soo you really won't have had time to make bombs via craft (and doing so with a long enough time period to cut costs)
and bombs to buy straight up at lv 1 are very expensive.
At lv 1 you get 15 gold. that is 15 gold for your weapon, armour, alch kit, probably an adventurer's kit. etc. You more or less have to spend 5 of that gold on an Alchemist tool kit (quick alchemy requires it. and most gm's will probably want you to have one for daily reagents--but this is not actually required strictly speaking).
so 10 gold for weapon(s), armour, other tool kits, living supplies, and a bit of money for in game stuff.
1 bomb cost 3 gold. That costs about the same as a hand xbow. or a 5th o your original starting gold. (I'm fairly certain you buy 1 not a batch for that cost but I might be wrong)
You can't really make or buy extra bombs at lv1. So you only have your free bombs via the class ability.
At later levels you could presumably spend time to craft batches of bombs for discounted cost (IF you have enough spare time), but it would still eat into your gold. I personally wouldn't craft any bombs until well later, and even then it would be lv 1 bombs for the debuff. But really I'm not likely to craft any because I'll be a bomber with perpetual bombs.
about the only time I'll craft bombs is if I pick up an Alchemist's Crossbow and want a spread of lv 1 bombs to use for elemental weakness targeting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darksyde wrote: Just getting in to P2E and was confused by some of the initial conversation of this thread. There was a lot of talk about only using a few bombs per encounter and never hitting. This confused me a bit because, as I understand, you can make as many bombs as you have money for that last till you use them outside of your special creation abilities that /are/ limited. After taking a look at the pre-gen he has a +6 to hit according to the sheet which appear to be on par with most of the other 1st pre-gens supplied. Is there a too hit penalty on bombs that I missed? Sorry of these are dumb questions just got a little lost at the start. anyone can make as many bombs as they want using craft outside of features.
that's not something unique to an alchemist
plus, bombs are EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to make.
For each 5 you make you could have bought an equal level permanent item.
At level 11 as an example (the next tier of bombs after level 3...), you could be comparing "5 bombs" for "+2 resilient full plate" not that great of a deal if you ask me.
sacrifing your armor upgrade for "5 attacks"
Nothing feels fun at first level!
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That's because 2e Alchemist is an extremely poorly designed class. If you wanna play a skill monkey, Rogue is way better. If you play a healer, Cleric, Druid, and divine Sorcerers are way better. If you wanna play a skill monkey and healer, Bard is way better.
Alchemist isn't good at anything really, except crafting. I'd recommend playing something else.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HeHateMe wrote: That's because 2e Alchemist is an extremely poorly designed class. If you wanna play a skill monkey, Rogue is way better. If you play a healer, Cleric, Druid, and divine Sorcerers are way better. If you wanna play a skill monkey and healer, Bard is way better.
Alchemist isn't good at anything really, except crafting. I'd recommend playing something else.
My thoughts exactly. The game actively encourages specializing in a few things so an adventuring party can face many challenges, except the alchemist can't really specialize and feels more like a consumables dispenser than an active character.
To go back to the main topic, the alchemist has one big design flaw that makes it terrible at low level and nearly game-breaking at high level: unlike spellcasters that have spells that use slots of different levels and thus need to often resort to lower-level spells even at high levels of play, the alchemist has reagents that can all be used to craft its highest possible level of alchemical items, and more and more per level as well. At low level it only allows to create a few pathetic consumables that fell barely better than cantrips, and at high level it allows to create a large number of very powerful consumables that can make a party truly terrifying and nearly unstoppable. For those who know about the "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" problem that plagued D&D, the PF2 alchemist has a similar "quadratic" progression problem.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Holy thread necromancy batman! :)
That said, some of the problems I first reported on have gotten better as I've advanced in level. More reagents helps a ton, and more access to higher level items. You can get a leshy familiar in PFS outside of class abilities so that helped with reagents too.
That said, mutagens are mostly terrible still. I've only made non quicksilver mutagens once and I've just made 5th level, and I only use the qs mutagen if we have alot of extra healing. I have enough bombs that I can make it through 2 or 3 encounters in one day and not run dry, and still have some leftover reagents for an emergency quick alchemy or two. I'll probably never use my level 6 class feat (debilitating bombs) until level 7 which feels lame.
Alchemical goggles are going to be a 7th level buy, and I can get an alchemical crossbow soon too. Bag of holding and the errata changes helped with the bulk issues. Sub level 5 is pretty terrible but its slowly getting better. Here's to hoping the 7+ level mechanics work out like I hope they will.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
If we're necroing a thread based on experience since launch...
I've had an Alchemist in one of my two Age of Ashes campaigns I'm running who has played since level 1. Its definitely been the class with the most hurdles, and is probably the most awkward to play.
That said, I don't think its horrible.
The class has a lot of utility, the ability to target elemental weaknesses easily, and can do nasty things like impose Flat-Footed on targets that persists regardless of circumstance. This has been extremely powerful. As well, certain elixirs like Mistform are extremely efficient (action wise) damage reduction that apply across all tiers of play.
I think the big issues of the class are most evident at level 1 -
First, the class lies to you about your primary attribute. Accuracy is more important than anything, and therefore either Dexterity (for bombers) or Strength (for mutagenists) needs to be your highest stat, full stop. Intelligence is nice for the class... like Charisma is nice for a Paladin. But starting with a 14-16 because you thought your accuracy stat was less important than the listed primary stat - Intelligence - because the book told you so - is demoralizing once the full impact of your reduced accuracy kicks your repeatedly across the life of your character.
Second, the resource curve for the class is NOT 'fun'. You're most strained for resources early on when they feel really darned important, and later on you have SO MANY reagents there ceases to be any real daily management. Just make all the things.
Beyond that, its one of the few classes in the core rulebook that isn't easy to play - a lot of the combat classes are pretty foolproof if you start with a 18 primary stat, with class feats serving as icing on your badass-cake. Alchemist requires a lot of choices, and it demands those choices be good, or you're going to have a bad time. Its fairly unique in this regard.
Altogether, I don't think Alchemist is a bad class - I just don't know it belongs in the Core rulebook, where it really should come with a giant "Advanced Players Only/Challenge Class" warning label.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
KrispyXIV wrote: If we're necroing a thread based on experience since launch...
I've had an Alchemist in one of my two Age of Ashes campaigns I'm running who has played since level 1. Its definitely been the class with the most hurdles, and is probably the most awkward to play.
That said, I don't think its horrible.
The class has a lot of utility, the ability to target elemental weaknesses easily, and can do nasty things like impose Flat-Footed on targets that persists regardless of circumstance. This has been extremely powerful. As well, certain elixirs like Mistform are extremely efficient (action wise) damage reduction that apply across all tiers of play.
I think the big issues of the class are most evident at level 1 -
First, the class lies to you about your primary attribute. Accuracy is more important than anything, and therefore either Dexterity (for bombers) or Strength (for mutagenists) needs to be your highest stat, full stop. Intelligence is nice for the class... like Charisma is nice for a Paladin. But starting with a 14-16 because you thought your accuracy stat was less important than the listed primary stat - Intelligence - because the book told you so - is demoralizing once the full impact of your reduced accuracy kicks your repeatedly across the life of your character.
Second, the resource curve for the class is NOT 'fun'. You're most strained for resources early on when they feel really darned important, and later on you have SO MANY reagents there ceases to be any real daily management. Just make all the things.
Beyond that, its one of the few classes in the core rulebook that isn't easy to play - a lot of the combat classes are pretty foolproof if you start with a 18 primary stat, with class feats serving as icing on your badass-cake. Alchemist requires a lot of choices, and it demands those choices be good, or you're going to have a bad time. Its fairly unique in this regard.
Altogether, I don't think Alchemist is a bad class - I just don't know it belongs in the Core...
I was also about to bring up accuracy as a very low point of the alchemist when it comes to fighting: all classes get extra accuracy from their primary attribute (either for weapon attacks or spell attacks) with the exception of the scoundrel rogue's charisma option over dexterity for those who want to be skill monkeys.
The alchemist's awful proficiencies are also a massive downside that add to the accuracy problem: literally every martial class has better bomb proficiency than the alchemist. The alchemist isn't better with bombs than casters are with weapons, their backup option when spells don't work, while it's supposed to be the alchemist's main offensive option. Better be a chirurgeon or mutagenist and use a crossbow or darts than be a bomber if bombs are worse than regular weapons anyway. Better yet, multiclassing in wizard and getting offensive cantrips that will always do better than bombs and won't need a massive feat investment to be viable.
I've seen several people mention the issue of Intelligence as a non-factor in the class' accuracy, and I can't help wondering how important that really is. I don't deny it's true, of course, but given how stat purchasing and advancement works (especially the latter) in 2E, is it really an issue? After all, it's not especially difficult to increase your accuracy stat at the same pace as your Intelligence right up until you get an apex item, is it?
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The other major issue is that the core book straight lies to you about Mutagenist being a viable option. The drawbacks to most of the mutagens are horribly crippling. That, combined with only having light armor proficiency means there's no place for the Mutagenist in melee combat.
The only combat focused Mutagen I've seen that doesn't have a crippling drawback is the Energy Mutagen. Of course, it happens to be Uncommon so getting access to it is entirely up to the GM.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Shisumo wrote: I've seen several people mention the issue of Intelligence as a non-factor in the class' accuracy, and I can't help wondering how important that really is. I don't deny it's true, of course, but given how stat purchasing and advancement works (especially the latter) in 2E, is it really an issue? After all, it's not especially difficult to increase your accuracy stat at the same pace as your Intelligence right up until you get an apex item, is it? Having the numbers against you at all levels with your bread-and-butter offensive option is definitely a big deal. Taking proficiency, possible item bonus and maximum possible ability bonus into account, the alchemist is always strictly worse than other classes at hitting things. About a -2 difference with spellcasters that don't have items that improve their spell attack rolls but reach legendary proficiency, and -3 with all other classes that use weapons (-5 with fighters specifically). This is not a negligible difference. The fact that the alchemist never goes beyong expert proficiency in any type of attack roll, even when specializing in offense, is baffling. At this point it's better to admit that the alchemist will never be a viable combat class and just an awkward support class.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
One of the counter arguments I've heard that bomber alchemists are ok is that even if they miss they still do damage. One or two points using a limited resource is a nice compensation but not something to build a class off of.
With debuffs, you have to actually hit to land any effects, and all but the tanglefoot bomb don't last more than a round. Touch AC isn't a thing anymore so you're better off going after soft targets than the big bad, which also limits the effectiveness of your debuffs as a party contribution.
IMO, bomber alchemists shouldn't be balanced around always using quicksilver mutagen, it should be a bonus as it would be for any other class to make up for the drawbacks.
|
