Pathfinder Friday answers

[Corvo Spiritwind]

Lanathar wrote:

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

I miss alchemical discoveries. Specifically Alchemical Doppelganger and Simulacrums :(

[Charlesfire]

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

I miss alchemical discoveries. Specifically Alchemical Doppelganger and Simulacrums :(

The alchemical discoveries have been replaced by class feats. Some are still missing though...

[Pumpkinhead11]

Charlesfire wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

I miss alchemical discoveries. Specifically Alchemical Doppelganger and Simulacrums :(

The alchemical discoveries have been replaced by class feats. Some are still missing though...

Like my Vestigial Arm, and Tentacles

[Zwordsman]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Everyone needs weapons and armor, martial characters usually getting more expensive ones and/or more of them.
Most casters need some additional tools as well - component pouch, holy symbol, instrument, and so on.
Yes, wizards get a spell book for free, but the alchemist gets a formula book for free so that works out.
Rogues need thieves' tools.
Snare rangers need a snare kit, although that's a higher-level thing.

Its true that a fighter will spend majority of their starting gold on weapons/armour or multiples of them. A fighter can opt to be a light combatant, or forgo a method if they so wish. The class allows for the flexabilty for the player's choices. Alchemist have several features (not feat choice-those too tho) that will not work without the kit. (while also needing weapons/armour too)(and most not casters will want a ranged+melee option)

component pouch are 5sp
Instruments (handheld) are 8sp
Religious symbol is 1 sp a religious text is 1gp
Alchemist kits are 5gp.

While its true almost all rogues would want a theif kit.
They, as a class can operate 100% (AFAIK) without one. They just won't be the trap guy (which is effectively a feat in the first place).

Meanwhile? That alchemist absolutely has to have that Alchemist Kit. Or they can not operate several in set class features. Quick Alchemy being the most obvious one.

But, Adv Alchemy may require it too:

There is an argument to be made that Advanced Alchemy itself requires the tools because that class effect is built off of Craft Alchemy, and that tends to require having the Tools.
While nothing in the Adv Alchemy section calls out the tools. Referring to the feat as the basis of their ability does muddy up the requirements a bit as Adv Alchemy tells you specifically what to ignore from the feat/craft.

This will depend on GM of course and how they read it. Most (in my VERY limited experience: like 5) have just assumed you needed the tool kit for all the class f eatures because thats what the class implies in several places (including the flavor text)

So, you can't really compare the 5gp 2bulk requirement to any of the other things that I know of. They're all Sp or cheaper, and almost all are - weight or L or up to 1Bulk at most.

Further, Alchemists are really very much an "off martial" support/debuff class so to speak. They have nothing like cantrips, so they must rely on weapons for a large portion of their career as well--(more so if they're not going "pure bomb" but thats a player choice) so they require the weapon and armour same as others (and more so than several other classes, such as Bards). So they can't skimp on the weapons and armour. At later levels it may even out more, but level 1 they'll have 2+(2xint) for the day. (which, even if pure bombs, will not last them a day generally speaking.)

At level 1 you start with 15 gold. 1/3rd of your starting gold goes directly to the kit.

--------
Of course. If you don't need the kit for Advanced Alchemy (see spoiler above), you could probably just ignore class features for a couple of levels. This is quite true.
buuut.. What kind of situation would that be? Actively having to ignore class features (not class choices) because you can't start with enough equipement to survive?
Does any other class have that situation?

(I adore alchemist class though. Favorite class and 90% of my builds have been Alchemists. So I am biased a bit)

[Corvo Spiritwind]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Charlesfire wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

I miss alchemical discoveries. Specifically Alchemical Doppelganger and Simulacrums :(

The alchemical discoveries have been replaced by class feats. Some are still missing though...

Like my Vestigial Arm, and Tentacles

I know right? Best part was to use them to scratch an itch on your back where normal arms didn't quite reach

.

[Davido1000]

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Charlesfire wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

I miss alchemical discoveries. Specifically Alchemical Doppelganger and Simulacrums :(

The alchemical discoveries have been replaced by class feats. Some are still missing though...

Like my Vestigial Arm, and Tentacles

I know right? Best part was to use them to scratch an itch on your back where normal arms didn't quite reach

.

Im pretty sure most of these things came from an "ultimate" book. combat or magic i cant remember.

[Cyouni]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

Already answered in thread. All classes should progress it with simple weapon proficiency.

This doesn't actually change things for Fighters, who remain at Expert in most weapons (including most Simple Weapons and certainly Unarmed Strikes) throughout their career, with only one Weapon Group advancing...until suddenly at 19th they're Legendary at everything.

Still, despite that being tad odd, it seems intended.

But they get master in all simple and martial weapons at 13th.

[Arakasius]

Yep that’s in the paragraph above the specific weapon group. So at 13 they go from basically expert in everything to master in everything and legendary at one thing. Which is pretty crazy to get a +4 boost in a single level.

[Megistone]

Actually, they are already masters with a weapon group since level 5.

[Arakasius]

Oh yeah so not as big then. I’m curious how often in play that weapon group will be a pro vs con. The 2 bonus prof is great, but it is defined by having your best weapon be that type and it might not be always available. I guess that’s not really any different from 1e, just a specialization concern.

[Edge93]

Arakasius wrote:

Oh yeah so not as big then. I’m curious how often in play that weapon group will be a pro vs con. The 2 bonus prof is great, but it is defined by having your best weapon be that type and it might not be always available. I guess that’s not really any different from 1e, just a specialization concern.

Weapon use in PF2 is still more free, which I appreciate. Because while PF1 Fighters did get weapon training with whole groups, there were still loads of feats that had you pick a single specific weapon, so you were still pretty funneled into one weapon, not even a whole group, unless you took a specific option that took years to be added to PF1.

[Perpdepog]

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

I miss alchemical discoveries. Specifically Alchemical Doppelganger and Simulacrums :(

Personally I feel like rituals are my friend there, at least until the extra body-type discoveries are actually printed, or an alchemical item gets made that replicates them. It's totally possible that things like wings, vestigial limbs and so-on will become items rather than feats ... or perhaps a new research field.

[Atalius]

It's too bad we didn't get the answer to whether or not Dex can be used in place of STR for Athletics checks when wielding a finesse weapon such as a Whip.

[Perpdepog]

Atalius wrote:

It's too bad we didn't get the answer to whether or not Dex can be used in place of STR for Athletics checks when wielding a finesse weapon such as a Whip.

Yet.

[Thebazilly]

Atalius wrote:

It's too bad we didn't get the answer to whether or not Dex can be used in place of STR for Athletics checks when wielding a finesse weapon such as a Whip.

My group ruled that you could use Dex for Trip/Disarm/etc. with a Finesse weapon.

The Finesse trait says "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."

A Trip, Grapple, or Disarm has the Attack trait, and is therefore a type of attack.

It could stand to be clarified, though.

[Edge93]

Thebazilly wrote:

Atalius wrote:

It's too bad we didn't get the answer to whether or not Dex can be used in place of STR for Athletics checks when wielding a finesse weapon such as a Whip.

My group ruled that you could use Dex for Trip/Disarm/etc. with a Finesse weapon.

The Finesse trait says "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."

A Trip, Grapple, or Disarm has the Attack trait, and is therefore a type of attack.

It could stand to be clarified, though.

And outside of any debate on the precise definition of attack rolls, a Dev said for the Playtest that this was intended, and nothing about the maneuvers has changed notably so it's pretty safe to still rule along the lines of that intent.

[Gisher]

Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

Does this apply no matter how you got that proficiency? For example, would a Wizard who took Fighter Dedication and Diverse Weapon Training to get Expert in Simple Weapons also get Expert with Unarmed Strikes even though they didn't have Expert in Simple Weapons through their class?

[Rek Rollington]

Gisher wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

Does this apply no matter how you got that proficiency? For example, would a Wizard who took Fighter Dedication and Diverse Weapon Training to get Expert in Simple Weapons also get Expert with Unarmed Strikes even though they didn't have Expert in Simple Weapons through their class?

They said even Wizards would benefit from this change. So Wizards get Expert Unarmed at lvl11 which is a level before they could take Diverse Weapon Expert. If you are going unarmed then the Fighter Dedication or Diverse Weapon Expert won’t help you but maybe some of the Fighter feats will.

[Gisher]

Rek Rollington wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

Does this apply no matter how you got that proficiency? For example, would a Wizard who took Fighter Dedication and Diverse Weapon Training to get Expert in Simple Weapons also get Expert with Unarmed Strikes even though they didn't have Expert in Simple Weapons through their class?

They said even Wizards would benefit from this change. So Wizards get Expert Unarmed at lvl11 which is a level before they could take Diverse Weapon Expert. If you are going unarmed then the Fighter Dedication or Diverse Weapon Expert won’t help you but maybe some of the Fighter feats will.

I'm confused. I thought the advances in Unarmed Strike proficiency was tied to Simple Weapon proficiency which Wizards aren't even Trained in.

[Brew Bird]

Gisher wrote:

Rek Rollington wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

Does this apply no matter how you got that proficiency? For example, would a Wizard who took Fighter Dedication and Diverse Weapon Training to get Expert in Simple Weapons also get Expert with Unarmed Strikes even though they didn't have Expert in Simple Weapons through their class?

They said even Wizards would benefit from this change. So Wizards get Expert Unarmed at lvl11 which is a level before they could take Diverse Weapon Expert. If you are going unarmed then the Fighter Dedication or Diverse Weapon Expert won’t help you but maybe some of the Fighter feats will.

I'm confused. I thought the advances in Unarmed Strike proficiency was tied to Simple Weapon proficiency which Wizards aren't even Trained in.

I believe they meant that, in general, classes should advance in Unarmed proficiency at the same rate they advance in Simple Weapon proficiency. Not that the two are actually mechanically linked.

[Colonel Kurtz]

graystone wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Mark's favorite thing: variance chapter. Chapter to show off how modular the game is and how easy you can house rule it. Examples Mark gave include gestalt (what if you got two classes) and giving everyone the pirate archetype for free.

This is pretty much the section I want to see: Optional rules.

Me too; I experimented with omitting + Level during the playtest, and found it far more to my taste. I also tried out +1/2 level, but preferred total removal of a level based bonus, so looking forward to them expanding on that.

I love optional rules/variants, something I thought 5th would really dig into, what with the system being very hack-friendly and all the talk about "modules".

[Gisher]

Ok, I watched the video and I see what you all meant about Wizard's Unarmed Strikes. Now I can go back to the Wizard with Monk MC build that I started when the CRB came out. :)

[John Lynch 106]

graystone wrote:

This is pretty much the section I want to see: Optional rules.

I thought any vagueness in the rules required you to get that GM’s ruling written down before the first session? Wouldn’t optional rules only compound that further?

[Deadmanwalking]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

graystone wrote:

This is pretty much the section I want to see: Optional rules.

I thought any vagueness in the rules required you to get that GM’s ruling written down before the first session? Wouldn’t optional rules only compound that further?

Labeled optional rules allow graystone and others in their situation to ask 'Are you using X' and GMs to announce 'I am using Optional Rules X, Y, and Z.'

It provides standardized language in regards to any House Rules it covers which allows for easier and more proper communication, as well as legitimizing such rules and making usages of them more common.

For example, a lot more people actually used Wounds and Vigor or Automatic Bonus Progression after they were laid out in Unchanined than ever did beforehand.

[Colonel Kurtz]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

graystone wrote:

This is pretty much the section I want to see: Optional rules.

I thought any vagueness in the rules required you to get that GM’s ruling written down before the first session? Wouldn’t optional rules only compound that further?

Labeled optional rules allow graystone and others in their situation to ask 'Are you using X' and GMs to announce 'I am using Optional Rules X, Y, and Z.'

It provides standardized language in regards to any House Rules it covers which allows for easier and more proper communication, as well as legitimizing such rules and making usages of them more common.

For example, a lot more people actually used Wounds and Vigor or Automatic Bonus Progression after they were laid out in Unchanined than ever did beforehand.

Exactly, and at least with PF2 I know Unchained's Revised Action Economy is default.