Two things I'm not clear on:
1. Do multi-class spellcaster archetypes (e.g. Wizard dedication) get the spellcasting class feature? If not, you can't use an archetype to meet that prerequisite for Hellknight signifer, you'd have to start with one of the spellcasting classes. And the dedications do not say that you get it.
2. Can all spells be heightened? On CRB page 299 the sentence "This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level" seems to say yes, but on page 306, the sentence "If the spell can be heightened, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block" seems to say no.
1. You need to take the 4th-level feat that gives you Basic Spellcasting. IMHO that should serve as the equivalent of the spellcasting class feature as far as later prerequisites are concerned.
2. Yes, AFAICT all spells can be heightened, even if some of them don't get a clear numerical advantage in doing so. Prepared spellcasters have to prepare it at its heightened level, while spontaneous spellcasters have to either have it as one of their signature spells or else take it at a higher level amongst their few spells known.
|
2. Can all spells be heightened? On CRB page 299 the sentence "This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level" seems to say yes, but on page 306, the sentence "If the spell can be heightened, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block" seems to say no.
The wording on pg 306 pretty much has to be erroneous, since there are both cantrips and focus spells that lack the "Heightened:" marker, and cantrips and focus spells are automatically heightened as you level.
So the Mutagenist fix is that you only have to drink your Mutagen once and can reapply its effect for an action the rest of the day? That's fine, I suppose, though I'm not confident it makes the Hyde Alchemist's math any more competitive.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, how else might you parse that clause outside of "at the time when you took the original feat"? Unless I'm missing something, there's really no no other way to parse it. It's not ambiguous, but it's pretty clearly in error. I'm fine if they didn't deem it important enough to mention, but there's no real discrepancy about how to parse that that I can see.
I'd parse that as 'at the level when you originally took the Feat' rather than anything else. I'm also pretty sure that's how it was intended. I don't disagree that it's likely an error, I'm just saying (possibly badly) that it's a very specific one based on precise word choice rather than an actual change like, say, Goodberry or Mutagenist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^ I don't think enough time was spent on Goodberry... ;-P
(flashback to Mark's "Cookie Monster" sound effects... this man FEELS the rules, people)
2. Can all spells be heightened? On CRB page 299 the sentence "This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level" seems to say yes, but on page 306, the sentence "If the spell can be heightened, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block" seems to say no.
Somebody else already noted specific examples which conflict with latter text, if we want to discuss replacement wording, something like "If the Heightened versions of spell have specific effects, those appear at the end of the stat block" would work well... Not giving impression it's possible for any spell to not be able to be Heightened, and just speaking of SPECIFIC effects (as opposed to general effects, like having higher spell level for Counteract).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I notice wasn't mentioned is that this errata only applies to the Core Rulebook. Issues pertaining to the Lost Omens World Guide and Lost Omens Character Guide won't be addressed in this particular update.
2. Can all spells be heightened? On CRB page 299 the sentence "This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level" seems to say yes, but on page 306, the sentence "If the spell can be heightened, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block" seems to say no.The wording on pg 306 pretty much has to be erroneous, since there are both cantrips and focus spells that lack the "Heightened:" marker, and cantrips and focus spells are automatically heightened as you level.
Good point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording on pg 306 pretty much has to be erroneous, since there are both cantrips and focus spells that lack the "Heightened:" marker, and cantrips and focus spells are automatically heightened as you level.
I've found that it's easier to understand the rules governing spells if you begin with the premise that cantrips and focus "spells" aren't spells. They can't be heightened, can't be put on scrolls or in wands. They each have their own distinct mechanic that makes them something different from a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree and that's why it was very annoying throughout the playtest to hear devs insisting that they actually are spells. They should have been called 'powers' or something with a footnote that powers behave like spells except when noted otherwise. But devs repeatedly stated their intention was to unify them with spells as much as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips and focus powers can't be heightened because they are automatically heightened.
What, exactly, is a spell?
|
Cantrips can and do go into Staves, so it's not like they are unable to be cast from an item. See pg 592 for "Casting Cantrips from a Staff". I think it is the changes to Wands being "once a day" not meshing with cantrip's "use all day for free" that made it so you can't put a cantrip in a wand, not a fundamental change in what is and isn't a spell.
Here is how I see the breakdown:
Cantrip: May be cast as much as you want at full casting level
Spell: May be cast with spell slots and may be Heightened
Focus Powers: May be cast once (or twice with Refocus) a day with Focus points, Heightened for free
I don't think we have seen it yet, but I won't be surprised if we eventually see Focus powers in items, and maybe a feat that says you can use your own Focus point to recharge it once per day, like the "Drain Bonded Item" Wizard ability in reverse!
|
do note that there are sources of cantrips that don't auto-heighten, like from skill feats and etcCantrips can and do go into Staves, so it's not like they are unable to be cast from an item. See pg 592 for "Casting Cantrips from a Staff". I think it is the changes to Wands being "once a day" not meshing with cantrip's "use all day for free" that made it so you can't put a cantrip in a wand, not a fundamental change in what is and isn't a spell.
Here is how I see the breakdown:
Cantrip: May be cast as much as you want at full casting level
Spell: May be cast with spell slots and may be Heightened
Focus Powers: May be cast once (or twice with Refocus) a day with Focus points, Heightened for freeI don't think we have seen it yet, but I won't be surprised if we eventually see Focus powers in items, and maybe a feat that says you can use your own Focus point to recharge it once per day, like the "Drain Bonded Item" Wizard ability in reverse!
Which are those?
Every feat that grants a Cantrip I’ve seen thus far auto-heightens.
Which are those?
Every feat that grants a Cantrip I’ve seen thus far auto-heightens.
Arcane Sense gives Detect Magic that heightens specifically off proficiency in Arcana, instead of the standard heightening progression.
do note that there are sources of cantrips that don't auto-heighten, like from skill feats and etcCantrips can and do go into Staves, so it's not like they are unable to be cast from an item. See pg 592 for "Casting Cantrips from a Staff". I think it is the changes to Wands being "once a day" not meshing with cantrip's "use all day for free" that made it so you can't put a cantrip in a wand, not a fundamental change in what is and isn't a spell.
Here is how I see the breakdown:
Cantrip: May be cast as much as you want at full casting level
Spell: May be cast with spell slots and may be Heightened
Focus Powers: May be cast once (or twice with Refocus) a day with Focus points, Heightened for freeI don't think we have seen it yet, but I won't be surprised if we eventually see Focus powers in items, and maybe a feat that says you can use your own Focus point to recharge it once per day, like the "Drain Bonded Item" Wizard ability in reverse!
Which are those?
Every feat that grants a Cantrip I’ve seen thus far auto-heightens.
Arcane Sense is heightened based on skill not level so if you never raise your skill it stays at 1st.
Ah. Fair enough, I suppose. Although it still looks like only fighters can get to Legendary in Unarmed, and I would have thought that would be a Monk prerogative. :-)
They didn't mention this in the Twitch video, but I am pretty sure that I saw a mention that monk proficiency with unarmed attacks is supposed to be better than their proficiency with simple weapons.
|
|
Arcane Sense gives Detect Magic that heightens specifically off proficiency in Arcana, instead of the standard heightening progression.Which are those?
Every feat that grants a Cantrip I’ve seen thus far auto-heightens.
So it’s a specific exception, that also still auto heightens when conditions are met.
So it’s a specific exception, that also still auto heightens when conditions are met.Arcane Sense gives Detect Magic that heightens specifically off proficiency in Arcana, instead of the standard heightening progression.Which are those?
Every feat that grants a Cantrip I’ve seen thus far auto-heightens.
It's clearly different than auto-heightened since "You detect illusion magic only if that magic's effect has a lower level than the level of your detect magic spell." As you can only EVER get it up to 4th level with Arcane Sense, it's inferior to a normal detect magic of 5th level+ even if you've gone out of your way to get legendary Arcana.
Which doesn’t take away from the point that the cantrip does heighten, just under specific circumstances which are called out.
For cantrips, auto-heightened MEANS something specific: "A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level, rounded up." I don't understand why you're arguing that I'm pointing out that Arcane Sense does "automatically heightened to half your level, rounded up"...
Is there some reason you don't want me pointing that out so someone seeing your post saying it "still auto heightens" doesn't think it works like the normal "automatically heightened"? Heightened and auto-heightened are different things and I see no reason not to make that clear...
Have they mentioned if the errata will be incorporated into the PDF and or later print volumes?
|
|
Which doesn’t take away from the point that the cantrip does heighten, just under specific circumstances which are called out.For cantrips, auto-heightened MEANS something specific: "A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level, rounded up." I don't understand why you're arguing that I'm pointing out that Arcane Sense does "automatically heightened to half your level, rounded up"...
Is there some reason you don't want me pointing that out so someone seeing your post saying it "still auto heightens" doesn't think it works like the normal "automatically heightened"? Heightened and auto-heightened are different things and I see no reason not to make that clear...
The origin of this is whether all Cantrips auto-heighten (they do, unless specified otherwise*)
Someone said there was some that didn’t, I asked what they were and was pointed to Arcane Sense. The Detect Magic cantrip from there does Heighten, just not in the normal way. It’s the exception.
*Arcane Sense specifies otherwise
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: One thing critical to all Spontaneous casters that didn't touch upon, but I hope is being included in this round of Errata, is whether it is "appropriate" to cast any spell in higher level slots, i.e. without Signature Spell but also with any Heighten effects, just counting as low level version.
Using SigSpell, a low level spell cast with high level slot may not have any improved effect if spell doesn't offer variant at that level, but would actually count as higher level spell for anything that cares (e.g. Counteract checks), which simply allowing low level spells to be cast with higher slots would not inherently accomplish. Likewise, without SigSpell only knowing a high level variant of a spell would not allow for Undercasting it's low level versions in lower spell slots.
Depending on their editing stance, that may just be a FAQ rather than Errata per se, but a pretty important topic IMHO.
Going by current RAW, you can't heighten a spontaneous spell unless you
A) know it at a higher levelOR
B) have it as a signature spell
The text calls out that all spells in theory benefit from being heightened, just by being harder to counteract, even if that isn't particularly likely to happen. There's no provision in the rules for "wastefully" using a higher level slot to cast a low level spell without heightening it. A spell's level is quite simply the level of the slot from which it's cast.
I think I've also seen some commentary by Mark hinting that this may be intentional, that if you really want to cast a spell lots of times, that should be one of your signature spells.
---
On the one hand I wouldn't mind having the option to cast lower level slots by paying higher level slots, even if they don't heighten. Sometimes you just want to cast True Strike 20 times per day. But it would require some extra rules language, maybe a feat to let you do that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two things I'm not clear on:
1. Do multi-class spellcaster archetypes (e.g. Wizard dedication) get the spellcasting class feature? If not, you can't use an archetype to meet that prerequisite for Hellknight signifer, you'd have to start with one of the spellcasting classes. And the dedications do not say that you get it.
I believe yes:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.
You cast spells like a bard and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the occult spell list, or any other cantrips you learn or discover. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for occult spells. Your key spellcasting ability for bard archetype spells is Charisma, and they are occult bard spells.
HELLKNIGHT SIGNIFER DEDICATION
FEAT 6
UNCOMMON ARCHETYPE DEDICATION
Prerequisites spellcasting class feature, Hellknight Armiger Dedication, lawful alignment, member of a Hellknight order, passed the Hellknight Test
So yeah, if you multiclass into for example bard you gain spellcasting just like a bard, except you have fewer spells. But it's still real bardic spellcasting that lets you use items and qualify for prerequisites.
2. Can all spells be heightened? On CRB page 299 the sentence "This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level" seems to say yes, but on page 306, the sentence "If the spell can be heightened, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block" seems to say no.
I'm pretty sure all spells can be heightened (maybe not L10 because what slot does it go in):
In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage. These extra benefits are described at the end of the spell’s stat block.
Clearly implying all spells can be heightened, but not all of them have additional specific benefits when you do that.
The text on page 306 seems to be a bit misleading, perhaps because it was shortened to just fit on the page. I think it needs to be understood as:
"Heightened (level) If the spell can be heightened to gain specific extra effects, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block."
But that wouldn't have fit on the page, and the next page is a big list that really really wants to start at the top.
Each of the class descriptions for the five spellcasting classes includes a "spellcasting" entry in its class features list. The dedications have no such entry. So it seems to me that while a character who has the dedication can do many of the things the equivalent spellcasting class can do, it doesn't have those abilities [I]as a class feature.[/] If my interpretation is correct, you can't use a spellcasting class dedication to meet the requirements for Hellknight Signifer.
The bits you quoted, from pages 219 and 222 don't help: neither addresses the question.
I just don't buy your interpretation of the words on page 306. Change the meaning because the meaning you want wouldn't fit on the page? That's bonkers.
Have they mentioned if the errata will be incorporated into the PDF and or later print volumes?
Presumably before they put in another order for a print run of the CRB, they will update the book to correct mistakes. When they do the typesetting for that, they will update the PDF.
The commentaries that are supposedly in the errata are unlikely to make it in print elsewhere though.
Each of the class descriptions for the five spellcasting classes includes a "spellcasting" entry in its class features list. The dedications have no such entry. So it seems to me that while a character who has the dedication can do many of the things the equivalent spellcasting class can do, it doesn't have those abilities as a class feature.
While legalistically I'm not sure how it reads, I think this is a pretty backwards interpretation.
Surely it's intended for you to have the Spellcasting Class Feature since you actually have the ability to cast spells.
That is more or less implied by the level 4 Feat:
Basic Wizard Spellcasting:You gain the basic spellcasting benefits. Each time you gain a spell slot of a new level from the wizard archetype, add two common spells of that level to your spellbook.
Emphasis mine.
I would interpret that to mean that while the initial dedication might not be enough, the Basic Spellcasting Feat 4 certainly covers it with the "You gain the basic spellcasting benefits."
And since in order to be a Hellknight, you would need to finish your dedication feats, you'd probably want to make this one one of your three in order to qualify.
If the argument was that the initial dedication does not allow you, I think by RAW that indeed seems to be the case, but it's hardly an issue since most of the time someone would want to be taking Basic Wizard Spellcasting anyways if they've already taken the dedication and plan to go Hellknight (or any other prerequisite based Feat).
Each of the class descriptions for the five spellcasting classes includes a "spellcasting" entry in its class features list. The dedications have no such entry. So it seems to me that while a character who has the dedication can do many of the things the equivalent spellcasting class can do, it doesn't have those abilities as a class feature.While legalistically I'm not sure how it reads, I think this is a pretty backwards interpretation.
Surely it's intended for you to have the Spellcasting Class Feature since you actually have the ability to cast spells.
That is more or less implied by the level 4 Feat:
Basic Wizard Spellcasting:You gain the basic spellcasting benefits. Each time you gain a spell slot of a new level from the wizard archetype, add two common spells of that level to your spellbook.
Emphasis mine.
I would interpret that to mean that while the initial dedication might not be enough, the Basic Spellcasting Feat 4 certainly covers it with the "You gain the basic spellcasting benefits."
And since in order to be a Hellknight, you would need to finish your dedication feats, you'd probably want to make this one one of your three in order to qualify.
If the argument was that the initial dedication does not allow you, I think by RAW that indeed seems to be the case, but it's hardly an issue since most of the time someone would want to be taking Basic Wizard Spellcasting anyways if they've already taken the dedication and plan to go Hellknight (or any other prerequisite based Feat).
I've found that when I think "surely X must be true" it all too often isn't. :-)
For me, it boils down to "is the Hellknight Signifer prerequisite 'spellcasting class feature' met only by starting as a member of a spellcasting class?" If the answer is yes, then one would draw the inference that taking a spellcasting multiclass dedication does not give one the 'spellcasting cast feature' even though one gains at least some of the abilities related to that feature. If the answer is no, then one would draw the inference that at some point in the archetype, the character gains 'the spellcasting class feature'.
Another way to put it is "what class is a character who has a multiclass archetype dedication?" or ""what class is a character who has a multiclass archetype dedication and one or two feats associated with that archetype??" In PF1 it was somewhat easier: a multiclass character is both classes. In PF2 I'm not so sure.
There are two thoughts that started me on this: 1. What are the viable paths to becoming a Hellknight Signifer? 2. What is/are the optimal path(s) to that archetype?
If you can take a spellcasting dedication to satisfy the "spellcasting class feature" prerequisite, then paths which start with a martial class are viable paths, though I don't think any of them would be optimal. If not, then the only viable paths start with a spellcasting class.
I've found that when I think "surely X must be true" it all too often isn't. :-)
If it applies to this case, it defeats the purpose of the archetype IMO. Not qualifying as "Spellcasting" when you're casting spells is a bit out there.
I still think that it's a bit obtuse to say that a Class Feat that specifically grants Spellcasting ("You gain basic spellcasting benefits") doesn't provide Spellcasting as a Class Feature considering that "spellcasting benefits" are a class feature.
The only reason they probably didn't explicitly state "you gain spellcasting as an X on page XXX" like the Rogue Sneak Attack is because there are too many exceptions to how/when spells are gained in the context of the Dedication Feat.
Especially since as you've pointed out the only thing it changes is it restricts "Spellcasting as a class feature" prerequisites.
A Rogue or a Rogue Dedicated Sneak Attacker both have sneak attack and contextually are meant to both have sneak attack class feature and can take feats that require that feature.
What reason would the exclusion apply to casters when it doesn't apply to Rogue Dedications?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may be that the best way forward here is to change the Signifer's prerequisites to require "ability to cast spells" or "have a feature that gives you spells slots" or some such.
Or maybe I should just let it lie. I do wonder what the devs would say, though.
It may be that the best way forward here is to change the Signifer's prerequisites to require "ability to cast spells" or "have a feature that gives you spells slots" or some such.
Or maybe I should just let it lie. I do wonder what the devs would say, though.
Well I do think the intent is to specifically require someone to be able to do more than just cast Cantrips.
Which in a way means you are right in the context of the initial Dedication, but then if the person goes the next step for the actual spellcasting, they would then qualify.
Ability to cast spells would be satisfied by the initial dedication, and I do think that's probably not what they want.
The Basic Spellcasting feats seem to provide the "Spellcasting" aspect, whereas a Cantrip (which even a Gnome/Elf can have by level 1) is not what is intended.
Nothing to really back that up other than rules as they are written now to my interpretation, but I think that's how I will run it until I see something contrary or they state deliberate intent otherwise.
|
|
The definition of "spellcaster" is basically someone who can use the Cast a Spell activity for something other than/more than a focus spell or an innate spell. (The core book has a glossary entry for spellcaster which I will leave for the reader to track down, but that's basically what it adds up to.) Being a spellcaster is not explicitly synonymous with having the spellcasting class feature, but I am really comfortable making that logical leap.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ed Reppert: let's compare the Sorcerer vs. the Sorcerer MCD
Your bloodline provides you with incredible magical power. You can cast spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you can supply material, somatic, and verbal components when casting spells (see Casting Spells on page 302).
(...)
ARCHETYPE DEDICATION MULTICLASS
Prerequisites Charisma 14
Choose a bloodline. You become trained in the bloodline’s two skills; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice.
You cast spells like a sorcerer. You gain access to the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the spell list associated with your bloodline, or any other cantrips you learn or discover. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your tradition’s spells. Your key spellcasting ability for sorcerer archetype spells is Charisma, and they are sorcerer spells of your bloodline’s tradition. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of bloodline.
"You cast spells like a sorcerer", and the explanation what that means is that you gain the Cast A Spell activity and gain a repertoire of some spells.
---
They do pretty much the same, but you're right, that technically, when you multiclass into a sorcerer, you gain a feat that allows you to cast spells, not a class feature. Except, that it seems that class feats are class features. If you look at page 68 in the CRB, you see that class feats are a subsection of the section on class features. Class feats are also mentioned in the tables of class features that each class gets. So since you took multiclass dedication with a class feat, it's a class feature. It's a couple of layers to filter through, but that's second edition for ya.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that reading the initial dedication would qualify or at least seems intended to qualify.
It is at least distinctly different than ancestry cantrips but does that mean minor magic might technically qualify?
Although minor magic as written doesn’t seem to grant you the Cast a Spell activity but that seems to align more with Cantrips not being spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Cantrips not being spells" is inconsistent with the CRB, which on page 300 under "Cantrips" says "A cantrip is a special type of spell." A special type of spell is still a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That mutagenist change sounds a bit underwhelming. I mean it's better than nothing, but Mutagenist is already the most reagent efficient specialization by a solid margin. Where it's hurting is in its damage and survivability.
And while again, it's still better than nothing, it kind of undercuts the Mutagenist version of Quick Alchemy if you can just recycle your high level mutagens instead of having to worry about field brewing lower level versions.
That mutagenist change sounds a bit underwhelming. I mean it's better than nothing, but Mutagenist is already the most reagent efficient specialization by a solid margin. Where it's hurting is in its damage and survivability.
And while again, it's still better than nothing, it kind of undercuts the Mutagenist version of Quick Alchemy if you can just recycle your high level mutagens instead of having to worry about field brewing lower level versions.
The devs have said that they're still working on a number of things that won't be addressed in the errata document. Hopefully if the mentioned change to the Mutagenist is the only one, they're still looking at the Alchemist behind the scenes.
The devs have said that they're still working on a number of things that won't be addressed in the errata document. Hopefully if the mentioned change to the Mutagenist is the only one, they're still looking at the Alchemist behind the scenes.That mutagenist change sounds a bit underwhelming. I mean it's better than nothing, but Mutagenist is already the most reagent efficient specialization by a solid margin. Where it's hurting is in its damage and survivability.
And while again, it's still better than nothing, it kind of undercuts the Mutagenist version of Quick Alchemy if you can just recycle your high level mutagens instead of having to worry about field brewing lower level versions.
I know I'm counting chickens here, but...
*IF* Mutagen Flashback works as described, the most generous reading could allow a mutagenist to create a batch of all of their highest level mutagens first thing in the morning (or at least those they suspect they will likely need), drink all of them and then negate the effects using the level 2 feat.
For the rest of the day, they could conceivably mutagen dance. Free action to enable a prior mutagen, 3 actions available. Two actions to switch mutagens mid-turn (consume old, quick alchemy new) down perhaps to one if you still haven't used your free action that turn.
Quick Alchemy, then, could be useful for situations where you didn't initially prime a mutagen *OR* for creating other alchemical items on the fly, like various elixirs, bombs, smokesticks, etc.
And with that, you could conceivably rely solely on your mutagen now. That is, assume you will always be running Quicksilver for ranged or Bestial for melee attacks, because the action economy can now support it. You now free up your WBL for other permanent items because you can skip things like magic weapons.
Which presumably has the knock-on effect of an even broader array of magic items.
I think that was their intent for Alchemist the whole time... get into more magic item shenanigans because your "standard" bonuses are provided.
The catch for me though, is that Bestial Mutagen doesn't allow any rider effects. For example, as an alchemist, someone with knowledge both of poisons, resistance to them, and body modification, why can't I further modify my Bestial Mutagen (say, with an elixir), that allows me to apply poison effects through my claws? It would not only open up more varied use of the claws, it is also thematically appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there anything in the errata about the alchemist's weapon proficiencies? As it stands, they max out at expert, which seems weird, since every other class that advances their weapon proficiencies to expert at level 5 reach master at level 15, not to mention it just plain feels wrong that a bomber doesn't have master in bombs and the mutagenist doesn't get master in even simple weapons for going ham with the bestial mutagen claws.
It honestly feels more like an oversight, like sorcerers not getting master will saves, to not have the alchemist get master in any form of offensive proficiency. Heck, an alchemist can get master level spellcasting via multiclass, but never in something their class starts off with.
Is there anything in the errata about the alchemist's weapon proficiencies? As it stands, they max out at expert, which seems weird, since every other class that advances their weapon proficiencies to expert at level 5 reach master at level 15, not to mention it just plain feels wrong that a bomber doesn't have master in bombs and the mutagenist doesn't get master in even simple weapons for going ham with the bestial mutagen claws.
It honestly feels more like an oversight, like sorcerers not getting master will saves, to not have the alchemist get master in any form of offensive proficiency. Heck, an alchemist can get master level spellcasting via multiclass, but never in something their class starts off with.
Playing devil's advocate a little here, because I wouldn't mind alchemsits getting this particular boost for a variety of reasons... Alchemsits seem to have their weapon proficiency modeled after casters, presumably because like a caster they are capable of buffing themselves up above it. Similarly, though, this means they can also just buff their martial allies to make them even better. This is probably an intentional design choice, but it can leave the class feeling a little lacking as a solo act.
The alchemist also doesn't get to attack using it's key stat though, which is a problem for at least some levels.