Perpetual Infusions lets you create lots of bottled lightning, which you can use to make enemies flat-footed. If you combine that with Wizard MC for Electric Arc, you have an all-day contribution while you can expend resources to deliver spike damage.It doesn't say a lot for the class when you're saying 'once you hit 7th level and multiclass, you can actually contribute...'.Yeah, if you twist it like that.
Level 1: you throw the occasional bomb, especially against monsters whose weakness you can target. But you can also make ranged attacks because you have good Dex. In our local group the elven alchemist used the ancestry feat to get bow proficiency, and it's not difficult for her to have enough bombs for the whole scenario now.
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.
So Level 1 you can fire 3 1d8+1d6(Fire/Acid/etc) bolts, per bomb.
At Level 7 you have +1 2d8+1d6 elemental bolts forever, while also being able to throw bombs or use alchemy on other things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.
Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.
Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.
Oof, pretty weak example there. Notably, changes to cantrips and focus spells (with mixed success) are specifically targeted at addressing the issue of PF1 casters not getting enough opportunities to feel like actual spellcasters at low levels because they have so few spell slots that longer combats mean spending most of that time plinking away with a crossbow.
So what you've highlighted here is just another way Alchemists are stuck running off of outdated design principles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if you twist it like that.
What twist? They specifically say a 7th level ability and a multiclass feat allow you to have "have an all-day contribution".
Level 1: you throw the occasional bomb, especially against monsters whose weakness you can target. But you can also make ranged attacks because you have good Dex.
I signed up as an alchemist to actually play an alchemist, not what I could do better as a ranger with the occasional bomb...
Level 2: you can pick up the wizard MC if you like. Multiclassing is not dirty in Pathfinder 2. I did wizard MC with my fighter because there were no exciting L2 feats for sword and board.
I multiclass a lot: the difference here is it's more of a requirement than a choice IMO. This single feat gives you an actual all day resource that 2 out of 3 types of alchemist never get: a fall back attack when you can't or don't want to use your resources that isn't 'I use my sling'.
Level 3: oh hey you can get better bombs now. And it doesn't cost you any WBL, so you can also think about picking up a magical ranged weapon or finesse weapon.
You can use resources to make higher level bombs, but the amount you can use per day has only gone up by 2/1. As for a magic weapon, that's fine IF YOU WANT TO PLAY A GISH!!! If you JUST want to play an alchemist, it's no difference that the old wizard using a crossbow trope.
Level 4: Calculated Splash looks nice.
Most classes have this kind of thing built in, so it's more of a feat tax to keep up.
Level 5: 50% more bombs.
Only those made at the start of the day, so this is only true if you make every available resource into 3 bombs in the morning and ignore quick alchemy.
Level 6: Debilitating Bombs are a nice setup for a mean twist on Perpetual Infusion, especially since it works at Class DC.
To do so you lose the benefits you JUST said were totally awesome at 5th, 3 bombs per resource and the bombs have to be lower level. Also, since they all target Fort [AND needs a hit] this affect can be ignored a lot by non-mook foes.
Level 7: Okay, now you just have unlimited lesser ammo.
Sure, it you took the 1/3rd of alchemists that get free bombs and you happen to need the 2 types you picked. You only had to make it through 6 levels to get here to get what a wizard got at 1st...
I'm not saying the alchemist is as strong a class as the others, but I think it's not so bad as people claim.
It's big crime, IMO, it that it FEELS bad and FEELS like you are forced to buy abilities every other class gets for free. It FEELS like the work you put into it would be better spent someplace else. IMO, it's like saying the NPC classes aren't that bad if you put some system mastery into it: I've had fun with a adept in PF1 but that doesn't mean the actual player classes weren't better.
I do think that it's a class that requires more system mastery and some luck with the campaign (tendency towards enemies that have weaknesses).
You can make one that doesn't completely suck, but again that's not saying much: if you work hard at it, you might get close to what others can do without any work and picking things with a dart board...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?
Tell your GM that your character is looking for a way to acquire those items. It's in the rules, and it won't even cost you xp.
If you play with bad GMs, it's not the game's fault.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?
Tell your GM that your character is looking for a way to acquire those items. It's in the rules, and it won't even cost you xp.
If you play with bad GMs, it's not the game's fault.
Right! I've never had a GM say "no you can't have access to this thing you want that doesn't effect game balance, because I say so".
But it gets brought up by certain posters here as an issue often, I can only assume they play with terrible antagonistic GM's or PFS where things are more rigid? I play with a solid table of friends and we don't care at all about PFS it's not even a consideration.
If somebody wants to be able to learn a thing or archetype that's uncommon or *gasp* rare! The GM either allows it straight up at creation or will add it as a side quest/activity in the current campaign.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can only assume they play with terrible antagonistic GM's
A GM doesn't have to be terrible and antagonistic to be skeptical about giving a player options that the game itself has restricted access to.
It's pretty easy to look at something, see the game doesn't expect players to be able to acquire it normally, and then just say no. That doesn't make it the right call, but it doesn't make the GM evil or vindictive either, just playing it safe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can only assume they play with terrible antagonistic GM'sA GM doesn't have to be terrible and antagonistic to be skeptical about giving a player options that the game itself has restricted access to.
It's pretty easy to look at something, see the game doesn't expect players to be able to acquire it normally, and then just say no. That doesn't make it the right call, but it doesn't make the GM evil or vindictive either, just playing it safe.
Agreed. If the game doesn't expect a DM to be skeptical of allowing a game element, it shouldn't be uncommon/rare. If the Dm is expected to just give you uncommon/rare elements at start because you ask, then they shouldn't be uncommon/rare.
I can only assume they play with terrible antagonistic GM's or PFS where things are more rigid?
I play online with multiple groups and DM's. I don't think it's odd for for a DM with new players to be conservative with elements the game explicitly tells the DM they SHOULD be concerned about and shouldn't allow normally. It's cool if it's a home game and the DM houserules in elements that players normally shouldn't have access to but it shouldn't be assumed that such houserules are in fact the norm for all tables or overrule the base rules for unrelated tables.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can only assume they play with terrible antagonistic GM'sA GM doesn't have to be terrible and antagonistic to be skeptical about giving a player options that the game itself has restricted access to.
It's pretty easy to look at something, see the game doesn't expect players to be able to acquire it normally, and then just say no. That doesn't make it the right call, but it doesn't make the GM evil or vindictive either, just playing it safe.
Hanlon's Razer.
If those options weren't meant to be used at all they wouldn't be in the game as PC options, let alone different tiers of what is accessible.
Looking at anything other than Common as being forever off limits to your players is a GM issue, not a system issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If those options weren't meant to be used at all they wouldn't be in the game as PC options, let alone different tiers of what is accessible.
Not used at all? No.
But at the same time, the writers of the book put a big red flag over these options saying players aren't allowed to pick them up under normal circumstances too. I don't think it's that weird that that might give some GMs pause or that they might decide they're better off not messing with it rather than worrying over it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlimited lesser bombs are kind of nice I guess, but that still leaves 2/3 of the class unable to do reliable damage. Not everyone is going to be a grenadier alchemist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlimited lesser bombs are kind of nice I guess, but that still leaves 2/3 of the class unable to do reliable damage. Not everyone is going to be a grenadier alchemist.
This is another issue I have too.
Even if I don't want to play a bomber, I feel really incentivized to pick the Bomber route, because unlimited low level bombs gives me fallback actions in a way that unlimited low level mutagens and unlimited low level antidotes simply doesn't.
The class looks bad on paper because it literally came with a broken class path (Mutagenist), the mutagens themselves aren't even worth their penalties, the class doesn't have any progression that goes to master even in specific fields that need them.
Also, let's not forget, it's the only class in the game that have feat taxes that are required for them to keep up over levels.
Honestly, the description of your game sounded like you guys were doing something wrong or maybe the player got some really lucky sessions and skewered the perception to a more positive light.
The class has too much underlying problems to be called "highly effective and useful".
I don't know anything about the mutagen or healer paths. Mutagens do look really weak. They really seem to have wanted to avoid ability boosting abilities.
The bombing path has proven to be very effective and useful.
So far the alchemist has been highly effective and useful. Splash and persistent damage is big for the alchemist. It adds up over the course of battles. Then elixirs like mist form and cheetah provide useful group combat effects.
Cantrips on paper may look more effective. In place the alchemist is a nightmare to deal with usually deals the most damage in a combat.
An alchemist can brew endless 1st level bombs. A 1st lvl fire bomb does 1d8+6 and 3 PF damage on a hit with intelligence splash damage to all adjacent targets endlessly.
The alchemist in our group tries to stack acid and fire persistent damage in single target fights. That damage adds up when you're doing 2d6 PA and 3 or more PF.
I think the alchemist is another one of those classes that on paper is not impressive, but once you put it all together with feats is incredibly effective.
1d8 + 6, 3 persistent, and int mod splash at first level? Yeah, no, your math is really off. I wish alchemist fire were that impressive at level 1. Alch fire does 1d8 damage on direct hit, plus 1 splash. You can bump that up to 1d8 + 1 with 2 persistent if you take a goblin ancestry feat.
Unless you're talking perpetual fire bombs, which you also can't brew until level 7, and even then you can only pick 2 types, and you can't change it without retraining. Even then, a perpetual fire bomb thrown at level 7 will do....1d8 damage, 1 persistent, with 4 splash if you take the almost mandatory feat, and the same bump up if you take the goblin feat. Sticky bombs would do 1d8 with 5 persistent. You also can only get off at most 2 bombs that way per round as well.
All that being said, I agree with the sentiments made after this post. I'd love it if I could hand out a useful elixir/mutagen to my party members at the beginning of the adventure and then throw a few bombs in combat for useful debuffs and damage, falling back on a sling or crossbow as last resort, but until level 7 you can't really do that. You just don't have...
We're not going off 1st level are we? At 9th level with feats the alchemist has proven to be one of the most effective damage dealers in the group, especially against groups of enemies.
Perpetual Infusions lets you create lots of bottled lightning, which you can use to make enemies flat-footed. If you combine that with Wizard MC for Electric Arc, you have an all-day contribution while you can expend resources to deliver spike damage.It doesn't say a lot for the class when you're saying 'once you hit 7th level and multiclass, you can actually contribute...'.Yeah, if you twist it like that.
Level 1: you throw the occasional bomb, especially against monsters whose weakness you can target. But you can also make ranged attacks because you have good Dex. In our local group the elven alchemist used the ancestry feat to get bow proficiency, and it's not difficult for her to have enough bombs for the whole scenario now.
Level 2: you can pick up the wizard MC if you like. Multiclassing is not dirty in Pathfinder 2. I did wizard MC with my fighter because there were no exciting L2 feats for sword and board.
Level 3: oh hey you can get better bombs now. And it doesn't cost you any WBL, so you can also think about picking up a magical ranged weapon or finesse weapon.
Level 4: Calculated Splash looks nice.
Level 5: 50% more bombs.
Level 6: Debilitating Bombs are a nice setup for a mean twist on Perpetual Infusion, especially since it works at Class DC.
Level 7: Okay, now you just have unlimited lesser ammo.
---
I'm not saying the alchemist is as strong a class as the others, but I think it's not so bad as people claim. I do think that it's a class that requires more system mastery and some luck with the campaign (tendency towards enemies that have weaknesses).
All I know is in play the alchemist is doing immense damage and putting massive pressure on enemies.
He'll toss out a bomb doing 5 fire splash damage. He'll occasionally crit. Two fire bombs in a round against a group of 3 targets which he usually throws out a fire bomb at each target to get persistent damage going.
He'll hit two of the guys for 2d8+5 fire plus 3 PF. Then 5 splash damage to the other guys.
First Bomb:
Target 1: 2d8+5 + 3 PF
Target 2: 5 splash
Target 3: 5 splash
Second Bomb:
Target 1: 5 splash +3 PF
Target 2: 2d8+5 splash +3 PF
Target 3: 5 splash
After two bombs:
Target 1: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 2: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 3: 10 fire damage
So for one round of actions and 2 bombs, you're looking at 54 fire damage. That seems very good to me. And that is without crit.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlimited lesser bombs are kind of nice I guess, but that still leaves 2/3 of the class unable to do reliable damage. Not everyone is going to be a grenadier alchemist.This isn't a problem if options that don't involve dealing damage provide some cool stuff to do. The current problem is that none of the research fields provide anything that really feels substantial apart from unlimited ressources for two specific consumables (the chirurgeon clearly being the worst one with only antidotes and antiplagues, the most situational elixirs ever, being affected). Whatever you pick, you remain stuck with many OK-ish abilities but nothing truly outstanding. A bomber is beaten in damage and debuffing by a martial or a combat caster, a chirurgeon can hardly match a divine caster in terms of healing and utility, and a mutagenist doesn't have anything as good as what a buffer caster can offer.
You cannot expect a class to fill several roles at once and not run into serious problems.
It's a legitimate question how you should approach building such a character.
I think the alchemist class really is more of a "hard mode" class than others. I don't think it's as bad as people say. But it's kinda like a Solarian vs. an Operative. One of those classes is almost impossible not to make a strong character in. The other can be strong (my Solarian mostly solo'd the final boss of Dead Suns) but it takes a lot more to get it running.
The problem with the alchemist class seems to be that it's a generalist in a game of specialists. It can sort of do things like a lot of other classes, but not as good as any of them. And that in a game with tight math.
Alchemists do have some unusual abilities though, and I think if you can leverage those you can have a strong game, that plays differently than other classes;
- There's no limit on how many formulas you can learn (unlike a sorcerer learning spells known), and you can still sort of cast spontaneously with quick alchemy. If we get more books with more formulas, that's going to become a more and more powerful ability.
- All of your "alchemy slots" function at highest level, unlike casters, who only have a few highest level slots.
- You don't gain "cantrips" until level 7, but those are pretty neat.
- You have to choose between flexibility (quick alchemy) vs. efficiency (preparing stuff at the start of the day). That's sort of a slider that you can adjust every day though. If you know very well what you're going to face that day, you can go for efficiency. If you're going into the unknown, you can slide towards adaptability.
- You're sort of forced to have a good Dexterity, unlike casters who have more choices. But now that you have good Dexterity, you might as well adopt ranged weapons and rogue skills.
- Multiclassing into a variety of classes works pretty well for you. Wizard for Int-based casting, rogue to become a batman skillmonkey. Possibly others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?
Tell your GM that your character is looking for a way to acquire those items. It's in the rules, and it won't even cost you xp.
If you play with bad GMs, it's not the game's fault.
If you mainly play PFS though, well you just have to hope the scenario writers are feeling generous, and you just so happen to play the right scenario with the right character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disclaimer: Alchemist is not a rabbit hole I've pursued. All numbers suggested are for the sake of discussion, and not to be treated as anything else.
____
But: It sounds like a potential optional 'fix' is something on the order of:
Gain Focus Pool: 1
Replace: Each day during your daily preparations, you gain a number of batches of infused reagents equal to your level + your Intelligence modifier.
With: gain a number of batches of infused reagents equal to 5 + your Intelligence modifier.
Spend 1 Focus over 1 minute to refill your Infused Reagent Pool.
Refocus as per normal 10 minute refocus options.
When a class feat gives you more Reagents, increase your pool by the listed amount, in case of rounding, round up.
__________
Would something like this help? It seems like the issue is the quantity of reagents available at any given level, particularly the low end of things, and Focus pools have gone a long way to 'fix' that issue. This may have wide sweeping ripple effects that I'm not familiar enough with the class to see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh here's a thought. What if the Alchemist could scavenge supplies from monsters or resources around them with a successful Alchemy check that determined how many reagents they regain?
That's a level of creepy generally reserved for necromancers and taxidermists.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh here's a thought. What if the Alchemist could scavenge supplies from monsters or resources around them with a successful Alchemy check that determined how many reagents they regain?That's a level of creepy generally reserved for necromancers and taxidermists.
It's pretty thematic though. Alchemists in fiction are all about preparing exotic potions from magical ingredients from strange beasts and abominations. Makes sense an adventuring alchemist might want to be able to procure their own.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty thematic though. Alchemists in fiction are all about preparing exotic potions from magical ingredients from strange beasts and abominations. Makes sense an adventuring alchemist might want to be able to procure their own.Oh here's a thought. What if the Alchemist could scavenge supplies from monsters or resources around them with a successful Alchemy check that determined how many reagents they regain?That's a level of creepy generally reserved for necromancers and taxidermists.
I meant to say natural resources too but I do think it's pretty flavorful overall and would give Alchemists something to do during everyone else's 10 minute break.
Oh here's a thought. What if the Alchemist could scavenge supplies from monsters or resources around them with a successful Alchemy check that determined how many reagents they regain?That's a level of creepy generally reserved for necromancers and taxidermists.
You say that like it's a BAD thing. ;)
An alchemist with Lore Taxidermy DOES sound cool and if you could them animate the bones it's about as eco-friendly as you can get by using the whole thing especially if someone else has Lore Cooking too.
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?
Tell your GM that your character is looking for a way to acquire those items. It's in the rules, and it won't even cost you xp.
If you play with bad GMs, it's not the game's fault.Oh. So according to you, PCs should get any item/spell/etc they want - otherwise the GM is a bad GM.
Can you explain the purpose of the rarity system again ?
** spoiler omitted **
Yea pretty much, as the Gm of my table the rarity system is there as a guideline to how much something shows up in the world, and how disruptive it is to game play.
According to the CRB.
"Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world."
I have 0 issue in allowing an Alchemist to have the "special training" to be able to create/find/use an Alchemical Crossbow. I'm clearly crazy.
If a player wanted an Alchemical Crossbow to be part of that story and it's not incongruous there's absolutely no reason to not let them get one.
"The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items"
Gives GM's carte blanche to change the rarity of anything they want, if one of the players wants something cool and non-game breaking, there's no harm in giving it to them.
With your interpretation of the rules I'd just never play at a table that you were GMing and life would move on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing with no uncommon ever is like playing with only CRB PF1.
That is, it's not unplayable, but it's insanely restrictive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing with no uncommon ever is like playing with only CRB PF1.
That is, it's not unplayable, but it's insanely restrictive.
I concur wholeheartedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a GM who's nervous about handing out uncommon items is a bad GM per se. Looking at an option, seeing that the writers themselves say it's not something that should be normally acquirable, and deciding it's better to not mess with it is a safe move, even if it's not the right one.
The intent is that Uncommon items are generally things that can be obtained with effort, but the book doesn't make that entirely clear.
There's also the issue of there essentially being multiple categories to rarity. There's stuff that's uncommon because it's simply meant to be harder to obtain in setting but doesn't actually matter mechanically, but there's also stuff that's uncommon because they can alter the tone of a campaign if they're allowed.
Put all that together, I can see why a GM might decide it's better to just leave well enough alone, even if I agree it's not how the game was intended to be played.
All I know is in play the alchemist is doing immense damage and putting massive pressure on enemies.He'll toss out a bomb doing 5 fire splash damage. He'll occasionally crit. Two fire bombs in a round against a group of 3 targets which he usually throws out a fire bomb at each target to get persistent damage going.
He'll hit two of the guys for 2d8+5 fire plus 3 PF. Then 5 splash damage to the other guys.
First Bomb:
Target 1: 2d8+5 + 3 PF
Target 2: 5 splash
Target 3: 5 splashSecond Bomb:
Target 1: 5 splash +3 PF
Target 2: 2d8+5 splash +3 PF
Target 3: 5 splashAfter two bombs:
Target 1: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 2: 19 fire damage +3 PF
Target 3: 10 fire damageSo for one round of actions and 2 bombs, you're looking at 54 fire damage. That seems very good to me. And that is without crit.
So, the goblin alchemist with the burn it ancestry feat in a fight where they're using fire bombs against clustered enemies? I'm not surprised they did well, that is the one of the few places where a bomber alchemist can shine. That and swarms.
I've only had one encounter where I both had high enough initiative and the monsters were clustered enough to hit more than 2 monsters. Either they were too spread out or some of the party got into melee before I could attack. Unfortunately selective splash isn't a thing anymore beyond the main target.
Also, your splash damage seems off. Either they're level 4-9 with calculated splash and 18-19 int so should do 4 splash, or they're level 10+ and didn't take expanded splash (int mod+bomb splash). 5 is an odd number to end up on. Burn it doesn't apply to splash damage, I'm betting that's the problem. Assuming level 4-9 with the feats it should be 2d8+1, plus 4 splash and 3 persistent.
That 2nd bomb attack is going to be tough to land consistently as well because alchemists lag behind the martial classes with their attacks as far as proficiency goes. The fact that Dex isn't their primary stat puts them behind...
Why do alchemist lag behind? Most of the bombs get an item bonus to attack rolls. I have been giving him burn it on splash damage. My bad. He has an 18 intel. His splash is about to go up with the splash increase feat to 10 feet.
Clustered enemies are pretty common in our game. At least until they get hit a time or two by the alchemist, then they spread out.
I could see them doing some work for the mutagen alchemist. The bomber doesn't need to be any stronger. They are already very strong.
Mutagenist needs work though. Those mutagen are pretty unappealing. I think we have only used one to boost an intelligence skill check for recall knowledge.
I concur wholeheartedly.Playing with no uncommon ever is like playing with only CRB PF1.
That is, it's not unplayable, but it's insanely restrictive.
The flip side is having all the uncommons in play, like sacred geometry and bloodmoney because a players asked for them. And it's not really equivalent: PF1 never says a player is restricted from playing a shifter or a buying a scorpion whip or having a Occult Adventures spell.
Second, I see core only games all the time. They aren't common but they are out there. They aren't some rare unicorn of a game that never occurs. I doesn't mean all those games are run by bad/evil Dm's.
There's also the issue of there essentially being multiple categories to rarity. There's stuff that's uncommon because it's simply meant to be harder to obtain in setting but doesn't actually matter mechanically, but there's also stuff that's uncommon because they can alter the tone of a campaign if they're allowed.
This is the main reason I dislike the mechanic: without researching the rule element you never know why it's uncommon/rare [if you can find out at all] so it's not something you can expect to be allowed offhand.
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.
It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?
Tell your GM that your character is looking for a way to acquire those items. It's in the rules, and it won't even cost you xp.
If you play with bad GMs, it's not the game's fault.Oh. So according to you, PCs should get any item/spell/etc they want - otherwise the GM is a bad GM.
Can you explain the purpose of the rarity system again ?
** spoiler omitted **
Look, there are three cases.
First, if the GM doesn't feel comfortable with a spell or item, because they are inexperienced or because they think that it would break the campaign.
It's not different from PF1 where the GMs often restricted books, or banned flying races, or classes like gunslingers, or said: "No resurrection, death is permanent in my world!", or: "This campaign is all about travel, so teleport spells are not available".
The rarity rules help GMs to better identify which are the things that most frequently cause issues, and make choices about them. It could be that the GM misjudges the impact of a particular spell or item in their campaign, and bans it even if it wasn't really needed: for example they could have just taken some simple precautions to handle the effects.
This is not really "bad GMing", probably just some lack of experience, or being extra cautious. It can easily happen without rarity rules, too.
Anyway, in any ruleset, the player should not feel entitled to force their choices when the GM thinks that they can't handle them, or they would be bad for the campaign.
Second case, the item or spell is not common because it is not in the setting, or because it's somewhat more powerful.
Again, you don't have the right to get something just because it's been printed somewhere. Blood Money is a typical example.
The rules say that you should be able to get the uncommon thing you want, but you have to work for that: travel, research, adventure. That's the point of the game.
The last case is when you have a GM who will never let you have uncommon things, no matter what you say, no matter the impact. That's the bad GM you are scared of.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should have divorced rarity from potentially-problem causing things. How difficult would it have been to make rarity tags ONLY apply to things that were harder to get a hold of in the context of campaign world, then to have another separate tag that made it clear "these are items that could potentially disrupt the campaign narrative or otherwise cause problems" for everyone to see? Such a tag could also say "abilities, items, and spells with this tag are always Uncommon, if not rarer" or something to that effect in its definition.
They should have divorced rarity from potentially-problem causing things. How difficult would it have been to make rarity tags ONLY apply to things that were harder to get a hold of in the context of campaign world, then to have another separate tag that made it clear "these are items that could potentially disrupt the campaign narrative or otherwise cause problems" for everyone to see? Such a tag could also say "abilities, items, and spells with this tag are always Uncommon, if not rarer" or something to that effect in its definition.
They kind of did though. There's three classes of rarity:
Common (requires nothing)
Rare (potentially disruptive to the game world)
Uncommon (almost universally things that are locked behind particular feats)
I still don't necessarily think it was done right (there are uncommon things that aren't granted via feat), but that's what the breakdown actually is. Anyone can get it, specific feats grant it, and potentially disruptive.
You can't have two separate metrics of "how hard is it to find" along side "how disruptive it is to get it" because things that are high on the disruptive spectrum are inherently hard to find.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They kind of did though.
Not so much as I see a BUNCH of spells like rope trick or alignment and/or lie detection spells that have been specifically said to be "potentially-problem causing" but are uncommon. Ravingdork is 100% right that it's ALL mixed together into a big mess.
You can't have two separate metrics of "how hard is it to find" along side "how disruptive it is to get it" because things that are high on the disruptive spectrum are inherently hard to find.
I don't agree at all. If it's not, in your opinion, disruptive then there is no reason for it to be rare: if no one in your game world freaks out over someone having a ropetrick spell then it's free to be common. For instance, going from PF1 to PF2, you'd have to put detect alignment, protection and detect poison into the common pile even though they might be disruptive to the DM [but not necessarily the world at large]. Was ropetrick disruptive to the game world OR a DM's plot? IMO, it's the later and that doesn't make it harder to find in game.
EDIT: additionally, marking something as disruptive is much more valuable than telling the DM it's hard to find when that DM is trying to figure out access for players. If the DM knows it's disruptive and WHY it's disruptive, it's SO much more valuble than just tossing it in the pile with eastern weapons and normal spells developed by an NPC in an AP...
They kind of did though. There's three classes of rarity:Common (requires nothing)
Rare (potentially disruptive to the game world)
Uncommon (almost universally things that are locked behind particular feats)
Not really. Stuff like Teleport and Resurrection are uncommon and have a higher potential impact on the tone of a campaign than, I dunno, an orichalcum shield not breaking once a day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah this argument again.