I've just started playing PF2, and I was wondering what is the balance here? Most 3.X+ games skew aggressively towards casters, and the Focus Spells are an interesting call-forward of 4e's per-encounter powers. However, martial classes do not have these, and I fear it will again skew fighters towards the lower realms of play.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is much better than ever before.
Casters have had the scope and scale of their spells reduced, and skills can now be used to perform realism defying feats. Healing in particular has become quite good through mundane means.
Just look at the enormous debate thread about whether Casters are now weaker than Martials. Its very existence means we're a lot closer to balance than before.
So I guess the short answer is: You don't have to worry about martial classes in this edition.
Alchemists however... they might be in a sad spot.
alchemists at low levels are in a tough spot. At higher levels when they have plenty of extracts they are competent if not amazing. Bombers are very usable even if they feel a bit more like a PF1 class in that you are using a lot of your feats to fix math issues.
Alchemists however... they might be in a sad spot.
I'd say Alchemists are kind of in a similar spot as spellcasters. They aren't bad in an objective sense and can be pretty damn effective if played correctly, but 'played correctly' is more where the rub is. I see a lot of people going to make Alchemists (or spellcasters) expecting to play a specific type of character that the game simply fails to properly support.
Not that that's a good thing, build variety is absolutely something the game should strive for (as much as some people in the caster threads apparently disagree), but I think it's a distinction worth making.
The alchemist has some other issues with some of their Feats being poorly designed, admittedly, but I think that's just sort of expanding on that same problem of being careful with what you make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think at higher levels alchemists have enough potions that they can work fine and do what you would pretty much expect them to do. At low levels they have issues with lack of bombs and the bombs they have are basically limited use cantrips in ability.
They are in an odd spot in that they don't get martial proficiency levels but don't get casters pure power they kinda fall between those and feel a bit off due to it. Also its harder to effectively archetype especially for bomber alchemist as you need your feats to make your main class work where for others feats are often less for power and more for variety.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance was put front and center in every decision of pf2. The balance is the best in any rpg, though this comes at the detriment of many other aspects of the game. If balance is your key concern, then pf2 is the game for you.
Disagree with most of this.
Luckily, we are in the Bronze Age, and as such, Alchemists aren't a thing. Pathfinder by default is set way too late in history for me, early to mid Renaissance at the earliest is just too late.
But I'm glad to hear that martial classes are no longer the step-children.
I've just started playing PF2, and I was wondering what is the balance here? Most 3.X+ games skew aggressively towards casters, and the Focus Spells are an interesting call-forward of 4e's per-encounter powers. However, martial classes do not have these, and I fear it will again skew fighters towards the lower realms of play.
Monks and Champions both have focus powers and are martials?
I read some posts saying that alchemist is more of a weird, but manageable class that can actually be quite effective when built right. Sure the mutagenist has the drawback of loosing ac for using feral/bestial mutation, but there's also ways to offset the loss of survivability, like the mist form elixir which gives concealment (which I think has a 25% chance to negate attacks/spells completely) and the stone body mutagen once you get the ability to combine mutagens. There's also the medium armor proficiency feat to lessen the stat burden (though I wish the feat scaled).
And that's no getting into the utility that you can put out in terms of giving elixirs or poisons to allies
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll add:
If a party has at least one each of a smart, wise, and charming character - with INT, WIS, or CHA @ 14ish - chances are that party will have most of the game's skills covered.
The role of the character that focuses more on skills is to build on this foundation, rather than supply it.
I would argue it leads to more cooperative space outside of Encounter Mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Luckily, we are in the Bronze Age, and as such, Alchemists aren't a thing. Pathfinder by default is set way too late in history for me, early to mid Renaissance at the earliest is just too late.
That’s interesting. I associate Alchemy with Hellenistic Egypt and Greece.
Luckily, we are in the Bronze Age, and as such, Alchemists aren't a thing. Pathfinder by default is set way too late in history for me, early to mid Renaissance at the earliest is just too late.That’s interesting. I associate Alchemy with Hellenistic Egypt and Greece.
We even see in the movie 300 Persian alchemists trying to bomb Gerard Butler
Ya, alchemists are pretty crappy.
Is Alchemist really that bad? It can make alchemical items pretty much for free, and with the bonus from said items it gets equal to master rank. Hell, at 17th level with bombs it's hitting just short of legendary. Isn't that actually really good?
Or is this more the matter of "using math to patch the bigger problem"?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist is bad for a number of reasons
1) Early levels - from level 1 to 4 your class is a joke. You don’t have enough reagents to do anything in an extended day, your main “feature” that separates you from any other person that just bought alchemical items (Quick Alchemy and additives) is unusable because it costs far too much of your daily allotment for too little effect. From level 5 to 7 it’s workable but still feels pretty bad - Quick Alchemy is still very expensive but at least you have enough of your main thing to start functioning. From between level 8 and 11 onwards, alchemists really start to get going (the actual level is debatable) if and only if you’re a Bomber. Because their perpetuals are actually quite good when combined with sticky Bomb/debilitating bomb. Mutagenist and Chirurgeon are literal traps, their only distinct feature that could even make them slightly competitive with the Bomber is their 13th, and that’s no where near good enough to make up for the deficit of their perpetuals.
2) Master of None - Alchemist is a class capable of doing everything.. and is balanced assuming you do everything. Just like being a caster and deciding you just want to blast, it’ll obviously feel very weak comparative to other classes if you decide you just want to Bomb. You need to be using a mixture of bombs, Elixirs and poisons to really get the class up to scratch.
3) Boring - Alchemist really isn’t an exciting class to play. There’s nothing to look forward to outside of higher level poisons because every upgrade they get is “this thing you had before but larger numbers”. Imagine playing a caster with only 1st level spells that you can heighten. Would be pretty boring right? That’s the entire alchemist class. To add onto that, the area they’re most powerful in (long lasting buffs) are basically just some +1s here and there mostly. While it is powerful it certainly isn’t exciting to some people - there isn’t even the potential of a highroll like there is with spells.
Having said that alchemist is potentially the most broken class in the game at level 12, depending on ruling, a breath weapon spamming energy Mutagen alchemist can be doing 48d6 (72d6 at 17th) of a damage type of their choice in a 30ft come every round for 2 reagents every round.
Eesh, and all of that on what's one of the most complicated classes to learn? No wonder people have so many gripes with it.
Well there should be errata sooner or later; hopefully that in tandem with the APG will give Alchemist the necessary buffs to make it feel impactful. And hey, more alchemical items to craft and abuse.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eesh, and all of that on what's one of the most complicated classes to learn? No wonder people have so many gripes with it.
Well there should be errata sooner or later; hopefully that in tandem with the APG will give Alchemist the necessary buffs to make it feel impactful. And hey, more alchemical items to craft and abuse.
Classes shouldm't necessarily be rewarded for being "difficult to learn" by being more powerful, because that just isn't good design for a co-operative game that isn't meant to be competitive.
In fact, the biggest problem with alchemist is the early levels. Being boring should be rectified with time by new formulas, being a master of none... well that's basically what you sign up for when you play the class. New research fields that massively buff one of the categories of alchemical item at the expense of the others could change that, but I doubt such a thing will be printed.
IMO the simplest fix to alchemist is to change their reagents to 10+INT at all levels, and add the following activity in order to make Quick Alchemy more usable throughout the day.
Scavenge Reagents [Exploration]
You spend 10 minutes scavenging the area for things to use as alchemical reagents. You gain 3 infused reagents, up to the amount you have spent since you last used this activity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've just started playing PF2, and I was wondering what is the balance here?
Class parity is a selling point. It doesn't go as far as Fourth Edition, classes still feel distinct, but it's worlds improved from 3/3.5/Pathfinder.
Most 3.X+ games skew aggressively towards casters...
One of the persistent complaints from a certain demographic is that the system no longer skews caster.
However, martial classes do not have these, and I fear it will again skew fighters towards the lower realms of play.
Never fear. Martials are not only influential but interesting. The new action economy and critical system opens up battlefield mobility and makes for dynamic combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think alchemist is great for what it is.. I think just like casters it isnt great at specialization just yet but it provides utility that most other people cant match. Being able to provide dark vision elixirs, insane healing, good aoe threats with bombs etc. Even providing poisons for your party.. they're imo a really solid class for a support.
Eesh, and all of that on what's one of the most complicated classes to learn? No wonder people have so many gripes with it.
I wouldn't all it hard to learn at all. Specially with so many features that are very static (extra range, quick draw, bigger numbers, etc). They don't have a lot of stuff to remember and keeping your formula book in mind and at hand will definitely take a lot of your burden.
Alchemists are much easier to learn than a Wizard, in my opinion. Vancian casting is almost a Rube Goldberg Machine and using it effectively with lower amount of slots and a new spell design paradigm certainly makes things harder.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think alchemist is great for what it is.. I think just like casters it isnt great at specialization just yet but it provides utility that most other people cant match. Being able to provide dark vision elixirs, insane healing, good aoe threats with bombs etc. Even providing poisons for your party.. they're imo a really solid class for a support.Yes, in theory alchemists would be good at that, but in reality they can't actually do all those things due to their resource limits and buff quality at levels lower than 7.
4 poison doses, two dark vision elixirs (because you can't make just one ahead of time) 4 elixir of life and 4 bombs taps you out at level 3. You'll miss with half those bombs for ignorable splash damage and no debuff effects. I hope you like demoralising or shooting crossbows because that's all you'll do the rest of the day. That also means nothing clever like quick alchemy either.I think casters (and alchemists sort of count here) can do great things if they happen to be able to plan ahead or get lucky with what they want to bring that day. But, that sleep spell is going to sit unused the whole day if you run into nothing but undead, or bravo's brew of no one gets feared. Compare with a fighter's knockdown feat which works on anything, is an effective debuff, and can be used all day.
I disagree. The fighter's knockdown does not work on anything incorporeal or something outside of the fighter's reach (such as a flying creature). Every class has times when they do not perform at their peak and cannot use ever tool they have available. That does not necessarily make them bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone mentioned that the difference between the best and worst classes isn't that large in PF2. That may be true at higher levels but not in beginning play.
Now, these are just my observations from running some low level games that have had Alchemists in them. I have not played an Alchemist myself since I am a forever GM (and I thus rarely get to play).
At lower levels, where I find most of my campaigns take place in, a caster that does nothing but spam stuff like produce flame or telekinetic projectile seems better than an alchemist. If the caster uses something comparatively op like electric arc, the alchemist kinda starts to feel comparatively underwhelming. If the caster actually uses his spell slots well...whew, no contest.
As a dedication, it doesn't seem absolutely terrible. I could see someone nabbing it with an Ancient Elf or something. But as a class, it's the last thing I would advise any of my players start with.
I think the issue is that the alchemist (and to a certain extent, some champ builds) are designed far, far too narrowly to exploit weaknesses. If those weaknesses are not prevalent in play, the class is very meh, at least early on.
Bomber alchemist is fine. Chirurgeon is OK if you're a big fan of healing and not much else. The Mutagen one is the 5E Ranger :D
Although likely this can be fixes with some more exciting class feats and maybe a new research field that will allow us to quietly forget about the Mutagenist.
The chirurgeon is weird. Just math wise they can contribute insane amounts of healing basically second only to healing priests. The problem is their action economy is a total mess which just makes them feel super clunky. Not helped by their perpetual potion things are long duration poison/disease buffs so the ability to make them constantly for free is of questionable utility.
|
|
I think the issue is that the alchemist (and to a certain extent, some champ builds) are designed far, far too narrowly to exploit weaknesses. If those weaknesses are not prevalent in play, the class is very meh, at least early on.
This isn’t true either, or at least it isn’t judging by the printed monsters we have printed so far. Nothing is weak to acid or electric, and there’s 3 things weak to sonic. If the aim was to have them target weaknesses, then any bomb except cold and fire is pretty bad.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is that the alchemist (and to a certain extent, some champ builds) are designed far, far too narrowly to exploit weaknesses. If those weaknesses are not prevalent in play, the class is very meh, at least early on.This isn’t true either, or at least it isn’t judging by the printed monsters we have printed so far. Nothing is weak to acid or electric, and there’s 3 things weak to sonic. If the aim was to have them target weaknesses, then any bomb except cold and fire is pretty bad.
I just mention it since often when I hear Paizo folks discuss the Alchemist (or the Champion with its "Good-aligned" damage), I feel like I hear them say stuff certain options being great because of weaknesses. But, ya, I agree. I don't think weaknesses are enough of a thing to balance a class around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think alchemist is great for what it is.. I think just like casters it isnt great at specialization just yet but it provides utility that most other people cant match. Being able to provide dark vision elixirs, insane healing, good aoe threats with bombs etc. Even providing poisons for your party.. they're imo a really solid class for a support.Yes, in theory alchemists would be good at that, but in reality they can't actually do all those things due to their resource limits and buff quality at levels lower than 7.
4 poison doses, two dark vision elixirs (because you can't make just one ahead of time) 4 elixir of life and 4 bombs taps you out at level 3. You'll miss with half those bombs for ignorable splash damage and no debuff effects. I hope you like demoralising or shooting crossbows because that's all you'll do the rest of the day. That also means nothing clever like quick alchemy either.I think casters (and alchemists sort of count here) can do great things if they happen to be able to plan ahead or get lucky with what they want to bring that day. But, that sleep spell is going to sit unused the whole day if you run into nothing but undead, or bravo's brew of no one gets feared. Compare with a fighter's knockdown feat which works on anything, is an effective debuff, and can be used all day.
I've played and am playing alongside a lower level alchemist (levels 1-6) and honestly they've been an outstanding support-- I don't think there's ever a time alchemist didn't seem useful enough due to lack of resources. We have pretty long adventuring days but it's always been enough for us for the most part.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think it should NOT be necessary it IS the case that a significant number of issues with alchemists, especially at low levels, can be at least significantly reduced by taking an archetype (generally wizard). Spamming electric arc and ray of Frost is LOTS better than spamming a xbow
Of course, you then run into the issue that a wizard/Alchemist seems better (especially at those low levels) than an Alchemist/wizard :-(.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience so far alchemists worry less about resources when they hit 3rd and can actually prepare around stuff a bit better.
Levels 1-2 are a bit sucky in that regard but nothing forces the alchemist to go pure bomber imo. Stuff like cheetah's elixir at those levels is so damn strong it doesn't matter imo.
Being one lower on attack rolls isn't going to make an alchemist "bad at throwing", that is hyperbole commonly spread around. It does have an impact on long term average damage but even that isn't anything to note at lower levels.
Worse than != Bad at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist is a strange class. Most classes can be viewed as adding an additional "chess piece" to the player's side; a unit that will take various actions that help the party during a fight. Alchemist is likely the worst "chess piece" by themselves, but is unique in that they improve the other pieces just by existing since they can dole out elixirs and bombs before the fight starts. In a sense it's the ultimate support class, perhaps too focused on support to the point players feel they never get a chance to do something cool themselves.
Ultimately, I don't think Alchemist primarily suffers from a balance problem, necessarily. Compared to other classes, they have a lot of character creation pitfalls; they're by far the easiest class to build or play "wrong" in 2E. This could be seen as a balance issue or something else, but I do think it's an issue with the class's design - 2E has largely moved away from that kind of "new player trap builds" and I think that's a good thing.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the Alchemist problems come from the fact that it was re-written at the last minute. Throughout the playtest, Alchemist was supposed to be the Resonance class, being better at magic items and getting mileage out of Resonance than anybody else. But at a very late stage of playtest, Paizo decided to drop Resonance and had to rewire the Alchemist. That also meant that the class didn't undergo enough testing compared to others.
Hopefully, the new stuff in APG will help Alchemists keep up.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being one lower on attack rolls isn't going to make an alchemist "bad at throwing", that is hyperbole commonly spread around. It does have an impact on long term average damage but even that isn't anything to note at lower levels.
Worse than != Bad at.
In a game where a +2 to hit is generally about a 40% damage increase and literally everyone else who needs to make attack rolls gets that +2, it really kinda does.
Now, Alchemist does have other stuff going for them, including the fact that bombs actually do something on a miss, unlike most weapons, but dismissing their accuracy issue with 'it's not that bad' is not correct.
The big problems with Alchemist are that any play style other than being bomb focused just kind of fails to work mechanically, and bomber only really keeps up if you invest lots of your Class Feats on 'math fixer' Feats (something most other Classes have gotten rid of), and that it's super easy to build a really bad Alchemist by accident just following the book's advice.
So they only have one build, that build has to jump through hoops other Classes don't to function, and they're easy to build badly. It's still a vastly narrower gap than there was between any full caster and any martial in PF1, but it's a serious issue as compared to literally every other class in PF2 and shouldn't be casually dismissed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To get the +3 item bonus a character has to be around lvl 18, while an alchemist unlocks it by lvl 11 with elixirs.
This really only compensates for the fact that their attack stat (Dex) is not their key stat rather than for their lower Proficiency.
Technically, they're equal in stats or Proficiency and thus only -1 behind rather than -2 at levels 3-4, 7-9, and 15, and 17-19. That's 9 levels out of 20 and less than half the time. And before 11th level this really eats into their action economy in a bad way due to the duration of the Mutagen that provides this, meaning it's not an 'always on' advantage by any means. The 11th level version is better, it's true, having a one hour duration, but that means that only at levels 15 and 17-19 is this really the advantage you're saying it is. Four levels out of 20 is not a lot, especially if all are at the very end of your career.
And even for those levels, this comes with a loss of 2 HP per level, making them effectively a 6 HP per level class while using it, which is a pretty big downside.
It's a good buff for a ranged character who is never targeted by enemies, but like many Alchemist buffs, giving it to the Fighter is better than using it for yourself and even then only a minimal advantage (+1 to hit for -2 HP per level is a mediocre trade most days...the speed bonus probably makes it worth it for a Fighter, but less so for the Alchemist themself who is using their relatively short-ranged bombs).
In my experience, the best use of an Alchemist is distributing nearly everything* amongst the party; bombs, elixirs, everything. So in that sense, I don't think I agree with Deadmanwalking that the good playstyle that works is bombs. I think any Alchemist playstyle works... within the constraints of committing to being the purest of pure support. I think this is a really fun playstyle, but I do feel I may be a bit of an anomaly in that regard.
*You do keep some for yourself, and having spare reagents for quick alchemy is handy for specific problems requiring specific solutions. The idea is spreading out about 3/4ths of your alchemy in order to provide improvements to your party.
In my experience, the best use of an Alchemist is distributing nearly everything* amongst the party; bombs, elixirs, everything. So in that sense, I don't think I agree with Deadmanwalking that the good playstyle that works is bombs. I think any Alchemist playstyle works... within the constraints of committing to being the purest of pure support. I think this is a really fun playstyle, but I do feel I may be a bit of an anomaly in that regard.
*You do keep some for yourself, and having spare reagents for quick alchemy is handy for specific problems requiring specific solutions. The idea is spreading out about 3/4ths of your alchemy in order to provide improvements to your party.
I think being a support is very different from being an item dispenser. I like to have my actions to directly impact my teammates. As a Bard I love the fact that my Cantrips will have several benefits that I can pick and choose at will, my spells will either disable enemies or enhance my teams, this feels very different than making an item and placing the burden of activation on them.
I think an Alchemist would be in a good spot for me if it had more ways of using items on their teammates that didn't require so many actions and hoops to jump. There's plenty ways of making Chirurgeon great buffers and healers, if only they're not just item crafters.
I you really think about is there truly any difference in playing a Cleric Healbot in PF1e and playing an Alchemist that only craft items to give to party members? I would say there is not.
Of course, nothing inherently wrong with the playstyle, but I find that a class is better if it can be engaging while also providing heals and buffs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, nothing inherently wrong with the playstyle, but I find that a class is better if it can be engaging while also providing heals and buffs.
Totally understand this sentiment. What I believe to be the "optimal" way to play an Alchemist is something that appeals to me, but likely not to the playerbase at large. Concocting a daily strategy (which items do I prepare, and who gets what) is something I really enjoy.
If this playstyle is "optimal" as I believe, that may not be an issue in and of itself (I appreciate it at least) - but I do think that the Alchemist suffers from other playstyles people expect an Alchemist to be able to fulfill are lacking.
Edit; in a way, what I'm saying is that the Alchemist stacks up with other classes if played in a certain way that is probably a bit too specific and not conveyed very well through the class. I happen to enjoy this playstyle and am glad it's represented in 2E but the class still has issues.
Compared to all other classes, its for too easy to build an Alchemist that doesn't work, and requires too much system mastery to build one that works well.
As well, their resource system is entirely too restrictive early on, and becomes essentially no restriction at all late game.
Its hard to reccomend fixes like "just give them Master in bombs!" Because unless I'm missing something, Quicksilver Mutagen and Bombers Eye elixir puts them on par with a Master prof ranged attacker against anyone with Lesser Cover (an extremely common scenario).
Plus they have some legitimately good options as it stands, which conditionally can be REALLY good based on circumstances.
Further, any fixes are complicated by the fact that their hypothetical power level increases any time a new alchemical is released.
I've not seen any other class that has the issues Alchemist does...
That said, a well played Alchemist is definitely not so far beyond the curve that I'd call them, in that circumstance, brokenly bad.
On the other end, I think Bards are probably the best all around class just because of how they mess with the balance-math, followed by Fighters who do what they do just straight better than their competition (+2 to hit is more valuable than any other class feature).
Bards are the only class I feel like may be too powerful, and that's only really because they make other casters feel "bad" by comparison.