| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a few small queries about an alchemist using poisons.
Here are my questions:
1. Am I the only one that thinks that powerful alchemy is a feat tax? It’s kind of weird that the DCs don’t scale by default, like they do for every other class. What’s the difference between this and a hypothetical “powerful evocation” feat, that makes evocation spells’ DC scale to your level?
2. How do you utilize the powerful alchemy feat with poisons? It takes one action to create a poison with quick alchemy, and then three actions to apply almost every injury poison in the game. Is this only possible with the enduring alchemy feat, am I reading this incorrectly, or is there a feat that allows you to apply poisons more swiftly?
3. If I’m correct about #2 (which I very well may not be), is there any way to utilize injury poisons in conjunction with quick alchemy without taking the enduring alchemy feat?
4. Why doesn’t potent poisoner increase the DCs of poisons you craft up to your class DC instead of +4 to a maximum of your class DC? For that matter, why does it require so many feats to attain baseline competency in poisoning?
5. Are there no injury poisons above 13th level? If so, doesn’t this make Powerful Alchemy a mandatory feat for poisoners?
6. Why can’t you apply a contact poison to a weapon? Apparently this involves the “logistics of delivering them without poisoning without poisoning yourself?” Why am I more likely to poison myself while applying the substance to the tip of my spear, than I am while applying it to a doorknob? Why could I do this in 1E but now can’t in 2e?
7. At higher levels is the high action cost of applying a poison actually worth the effect?
8. Is there a rule that prevents you from applying multiple poisons to the same object?
If any of these questions have exceedingly obvious answers, you'll have to forgive me; I don't currently have access to my core rule book and am mostly relying on the Archives on Nethys
Only one I can answer right now is number 1, sorry.
1. Because poisons are items, not spells. It does feel a bit feat tax-y to me as well, but it is at least one that is applied equally. Rangers also need to take Powerful Snares in order to have their snares scale off their DC rather than the innate item level. Likewise your magic items that have effects that require saves don't scale automatically with your character DC, either.
If alchemists had a feat like powerful snares, which read "when you create a poison, the DC for that poison is equal to its normal DC or your class DC, whichever is higher" poisons would be infinitely more workable. This would still, in my mind, be an automatic tax for anyone using poisons. However, issues 2 and 4 would disappear while issues 5 and 7 would be mitigated. Yet even with a buff as impactful as this one, issue 3 still feels very significant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll answer, but in the wrong order.
5. Are there no injury poisons above 13th level?
The poisoner alchemist hasn't been released yet. It was in the playtest, so we are sure to see it very soon. When it will be there, I'm pretty sure there will be injury poisons at each and every levels.
7. At higher levels is the high action cost of applying a poison actually worth the effect?
No. Even the Rogue ability to do it in one single action is not worth it. Poison is nice because you apply it before combat. During combat, it doesn't compete with more interesting actions (throwing bombs, attacking, etc...).
Because of that, there is absolutely no point in using Quick Alchemy with poisons.It’s kind of weird that the DCs don’t scale by default, like they do for every other class.
Poison's DCs are equal to the highest class DC you can get at their level. So, there is no point in even taking potent poisoner right now (but the fact that there are no injury poisons at each and every level, and it should be fixed soon).
Yes, it's a feat tax... So is Powerful Snares, for that matter.
Yes it's dumb, yes it's completely contrary to PF2's core design philosophies... but it's what we have.
or is there a feat that allows you to apply poisons more swiftly?
Why can’t you apply a contact poison to a weapon?
The answer to both these questions is the level 4 Rogue feat Poison Weapon. It lets you apply poisons with 1 action and works for both contact and injury poisons. An alchemist can grab it at level 8 by taking the Rogue multiclass at 2, basic trickery at 4 and advanced trickery at 8. That means at level 10 (when you pick up powerful alchemy) you can reach a point where you can sort of functionally quick craft poisons.
SuperBidi is right though, even with the feat using poisons in combat isn't great. Even ignoring the action economy issues, Alchemists are pretty bad at using weapons given that they have caster weapon proficiency (and you can't poison claws so bestial mutagen doesn't patch that up at all).
Poison's DCs are equal to the highest class DC you can get at their level. So, there is no point in even taking potent poisoner right now
Well, if the DC scaled fully you could leverage low level poisons a lot better. I suspect that's why there's a cap on the DC and why Powerful Alchemy only works on quick alchemy, because Paizo was scared of alchemists batch crafting tons of cheap, low level items with high level DCs.
Though Rangers can do that with Snares, so maybe not.
Yes, it's a feat tax... So is Powerful Snares, for that matter.
Yes it's dumb, yes it's completely contrary to PF2's core design philosophies... but it's what we have.or is there a feat that allows you to apply poisons more swiftly?Why can’t you apply a contact poison to a weapon?The answer to both these questions is the level 4 Rogue feat Poison Weapon. It lets you apply poisons with 1 action and works for both contact and injury poisons. An alchemist can grab it at level 8 by taking the Rogue multiclass at 2, basic trickery at 4 and advanced trickery at 8. That means at level 10 (when you pick up powerful alchemy) you can reach a point where you can sort of functionally quick craft poisons.
SuperBidi is right though, even with the feat using poisons in combat isn't great. Even ignoring the action economy issues, Alchemists are pretty bad at using weapons given that they have caster weapon proficiency (and you can't poison claws so bestial mutagen doesn't patch that up at all).
Poison's DCs are equal to the highest class DC you can get at their level. So, there is no point in even taking potent poisoner right nowWell, if the DC scaled fully you could leverage low level poisons a lot better. I suspect that's why there's a cap on the DC and why Powerful Alchemy only works on quick alchemy, because Paizo was scared of alchemists batch crafting tons of cheap, low level items with high level DCs.
Though Rangers can do that with Snares, so maybe not.
The Rangers are setting the snares.
Anybody can use the poisons.I do not know the ramifications of a Ranger passing out a batch of cheap snares, but the poisons would boost damage of buddy PCs already at a balanced maximum.
I wonder what a poison-buffer build could do, applying poison to adjacent weapons for those with better attack rolls. Hmm...
Definitely subpar, but if building for utility over combat anyway, could be a way to contribute.
So there are some comparisons being made between snares and poisons. Just to be clear though, with snare specialist, you can create a snare with a 3 action commitment, without spending any gold. Poisons, on the other hand require a large time commitment to create, a 3 round action commitment to apply, and require, especially at higher levels, massive gold piece expenditures. Sure you can apply poisons before combat, but then again, you can also preset snares. Also with feat investment, snares scale on your class DC, while poisons do not. I’m not saying that snares are more powerful than poisons, simply that the snare system seems to be far better designed for player use than the snare system.
Okay, so here’s what I’m hearing. Powerful alchemy is not actually a tax; it’s a trap. The alchemist can’t quick alchemy poisons. Poisons are not effective unless you apply them before combat, in which case they only improve your situation marginally, while still requiring a high gp investment. This strategy only works up to about 13th level, at which point poisons become progressively less useful as you level up. Any class with master weapon proficiency and alchemical crafting actually makes a better poisoner than an alchemist who invests in poison at every available opportunity.
I'm curious why you say poisons require a large time commitmen to create? Its the normal daily allotment for an Alchemist (or quick alch I guess). Same as the daily allotment of snares for Rangers.
On this count, I totally misread advanced alchemy, missing the line of text reading "and any alchemical reagent requirements." I think I skimmed over, it not interpreting it as an ability to ignore gp costs. In other words, I was 100% wrong about the issue of cost.
When talking about time commitment, I meant that when not using limited resources such as infused reagents of prepared snares, snares can be constructed in either 1 minutes time or with three actions (if you have quick snares) whereas poisons cannot be. Especially at higher levels, crafting low cost snares with very high save DCs is an pretty good option available to the Ranger. An alchemist can't do the same unless he wants to spend a limited resource for a low level effect with a low save DC and even then can't do so on the fly with injury poisons.
The way it works:
- Buying poisons or snares is very expensive. It's better to either be an Alchemist/Ranger or to use items you find during the adventure.
- Poisons have to be prepared in advance and applied in advance to work. They don't cost combat-actions, which is their main asset. They are not overwhelming but a nice bonus during the first rounds of combat. Applying poison during combat is not worth it.
- Snares can also be prepared in advance, but you need to be able to access to the combat area beforehand. It happens very rarely. During combat, it's 3 actions to prepare a snare, and then you need a way to put an enemy into it (shove for example). Anyway, for 3 combat-actions, they are once again not worth it, as you could do better by just attacking.
So, poison is nice to have, snares are hyper situational. Clearly, poison is better to have than snares.
Imo, snares are worth the 1-3 actions to setup (later on Rangers can setup it in 1 action) since they do amazing damage.
As an example, the level 12 snare deals an average of 63 damage with a basic ref save.
A single target Spell of that level, disintegrate, deals just 66 and has to go both through spell attack AND basic Fort save for that.Having, as a ranger, 4-8 "max level spells" worth of damage isn't bad at all.
Compared to strikes, you'd need around 50 or so average damage per round to reach that much damage.
It does need a build that you can move/throw baddies on them though.
To put an enemy into a snare, you need:
- 1 action to move to position- 1-3 actions to setup the snare
- 1 action to move away from your position (as nothing states you can make Snares on an adjacent square, so you create the Snare on your position)
- 1 action (minimum) to move the baddy inside the Snare
So, even with Lightning Snares, it's hard to use.
Also, nothing states that the Ranger doesn't pay for Snares. Snare Specialist just says you can deploy Snares in a few actions, it doesn't state it costs you nothing to do so. I've I missed something?
Snare specialist removes cost for 4-8 daily snares.
True, reading it again, it does. I missed something.
The way I see it:
1 setup
1 step/stride
1 shoveIs perfectly viable, 3 actions to do the burst of a max level spell is not shabby at all.
You're right, you can use the step/stride to position yourself for the shove.
Still, one issue is that you need to succeed at shoving, otherwise the enemy (as long as it's not stupid) can back off.Also, one nice use is against stupid enemies. I don't think a zombie can understand that you just set up a trap.
So, I agree with you, with Lightning Snares, they look playable. Still, it's sad to get it that late.
12 is not that late since the edit ion is designed to more easily allow max level. I'd say it's midgame.
It's still more than halfway through the game. That's pretty significant.
Besides, simply given how campaigns tend to shake out and that not all campaigns go all the way along, I still think a majority of playtime is going to be before 12, rather than after it.
But even assuming you're right, that means snares are only really good and economical for 40% of the game, which still feels bad if you've been investing in snares since level 1.
Even at 3 actions, imo, they are still usable.
Apart from the regular uses (choke points, camps, ambushes, etc) the way I see them is as a delayed spell.
You set them on one round, you trigger them on next. It's not like the Shoves/throws do nothing else, they still reposition/damage the enemy.
Ish. If we're talking about the damage dealing snares, they scale disproportionately with the amount of damage you do, but start out pretty weak.
The level 1 and 4 damage snares do less damage than merely striking twice. I'm not talking about maximized DPR or anything either. I'm talking about your suggested 4-action plant+shove vs just striking with a longsword on one turn and then striking again on your next turn. They're not great. Granted, you're never gonna use the level 1 damage snare because there's no real point to crafting snares before 4.
The numbers start to pull ahead at 8 and then obviously at 12 you have quick planting which makes them much better.
There are utility snares too, and some of them can be pretty handy, but I think 'delayed spell' is a serious overestimation of their value.
Given that you're burning multiple feats and at least one skill increase to make all this come together though, I'm not sure the returns are really anything to write home about, especially for the first 60% of a full campaign.
You can entrench a position in a few days to make it hell for enemies to intrude/approach/pass.
Yeah, if you're in a specific type of adventure where you know where the fights are going to happen significantly in advance it's pretty strong. If you need to defend a position for instance the ranger can just spam out snares.
Any sort of "the enemy will arrive in X days" scenario and snares swing the other way and become kind of problematic, honestly.
But I still don't think that makes them very great in most situations.
Yeah, if you're in a specific type of adventure where you know where the fights are going to happen significantly in advance it's pretty strong. If you need to defend a position for instance the ranger can just spam out snares.
Any sort of "the enemy will arrive in X days" scenario and snares swing the other way and become kind of problematic, honestly.
But I still don't think that makes them very great in most situations.
Alternative situations where snares could be very useful include if an invisible ranger snuck into the enemy camp and covered it with inexpensive, low level, high save DC snare. Or if you're in a dungeon, in room A, and you open the door going to room B where room B contains a monster that relies on melee attacks. When the monster attempts to move from A to B to attack the party, it triggers a plethora of snares.
I believe, and again, I could be wrong, that if you create a snare right in front of a creature, it wouldn't see the snare unless its perception proficiency is high enough and it wastes actions to actively search. If this is the case, you could place snares all around yourself and no one would be the wiser.
To me it seems like snares are pretty good at low level, and very good at high level. In either scenario, though, I'm still convinced that they're better than poisons.
Alright, here are the few modifications that I'd make to the alchemist (specifically regarding poisons). First, I’d make powerful alchemy affect all alchemical items made by the alchemist. Second, I’d remove the DC cap from potent poisoner and make it a 16th level feat. Third, I would add poison weapon as a 4th level alchemist feat. Finally I would create clearer rules for contact and inhaled poisons.
Is there anyone who thinks any of these changes would be a bad idea?
I believe, and again, I could be wrong, that if you create a snare right in front of a creature, it wouldn't see the snare unless its perception proficiency is high enough and it wastes actions to actively search.
The enemy doesn't see the snares, but he sees your action. So, he knows you have put a snare on this square. And you can't put a snare right in front of a creature, it's always on your square.
Is there anyone who thinks any of these changes would be a bad idea?
They won't have any impact.
Powerful Alchemy is useless on poisons as they already have the maximum DC for their level. And creating lower level poisons is rarely useful as their main asset is damage.Potent Poisoner would become awesome, but at level 16 it's too late to have a real impact.
Poison Weapon is bad. Poison has to be applied precombat to the characters who can reliably hit. The Alchemist will rarely be the one who poison the enemy.
If you want to make clearer rules, help yourself. I agree they are not very easy to use during combat (I don't think contact poisons are supposed to be used during combat, but inhaled ones could be).