| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Which should prompt the designers to make every other casters as fun, engaging and strong as Bards not the other way around.
Just putting it out there, in case nerfs are being considered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem with the alchemist is one of perception. IME if you go into the class looking to play a dedicated support character who focuses primarily on augmenting allies, they're pretty okay.
But the game presents concepts like a mutagenist who transforms their body to defeat enemies as a real character concept and stuff like that falls apart in execution.
It also has a lot of other problems that are probably a result of the last minute rewrite. A reliance on math fixing feats. Stuff like Double Brew and Alchemical Alacrity working really awkwardly on their own. Perpetual Alchemy I think only really makes a lot of sense for Bombers (it only saves a few reagents for Chirugeons and Mutagenists are already the most reagent efficient build , which makes free, low level mutagens feel kind of pointless).
The class isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but it definitely feels underdeveloped and underpolished in certain aspects in the same way the Playtest versions of the the APG classes were.
Kind of feel like they ought to have had Master proficiency too (with maybe Mutagens being adjusted). Right now mutagenists have some trouble pulling off full combat routines, chirurgeons don't really have any good fallback option in combat and even bombers feel like they miss more than they should. The lack of a combat mechanic like SA or Rage, downgraded proficiencies and inability to make str/dex their class attribute would still have them behind the curve relative to real martials.
Regarding Bards: Might be a bad take for some people but I sort of think Focus Cantrips weren't a great design choice. IMO, one of the core conceits of Pathfinder 2 is having a floating third action. Third attacks are rarely great for martials and spellcasters don't have a clear third thing to do each round too. It leaves it open for more situational functions.
For Bards, Inspire/Dirge just feels like it's way too often the right answer and kinda makes their combat routine pretty boring. Spell + Song just feels way too often like the best thing to do in any fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem with the alchemist is one of perception. IME if you go into the class looking to play a dedicated support character who focuses primarily on augmenting allies, they're pretty okay.
But the game presents concepts like a mutagenist who transforms their body to defeat enemies as a real character concept and stuff like that falls apart in execution.
It also has a lot of other problems that are probably a result of the last minute rewrite. A reliance on math fixing feats. Stuff like Double Brew and Alchemical Alacrity working really awkwardly on their own. Perpetual Alchemy I think only really makes a lot of sense for Bombers (it only saves a few reagents for Chirugeons and Mutagenists are already the most reagent efficient build , which makes free, low level mutagens feel kind of pointless).
The class isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but it definitely feels underdeveloped and underpolished in certain aspects in the same way the Playtest versions of the the APG classes were.
Kind of feel like they ought to have had Master proficiency too (with maybe Mutagens being adjusted). Right now mutagenists have some trouble pulling off full combat routines, chirurgeons don't really have any good fallback option in combat and even bombers feel like they miss more than they should. The lack of a combat mechanic like SA or Rage, downgraded proficiencies and inability to make str/dex their class attribute would still have them behind the curve relative to real martials.
Regarding Bards: Might be a bad take for some people but I sort of think Focus Cantrips weren't a great design choice. IMO, one of the core conceits of Pathfinder 2 is having a floating third action. Third attacks are rarely great for martials and spellcasters don't have a clear third thing to do each round too. It leaves it open for more situational functions.
For Bards, Inspire/Dirge just feels like it's way too often the right answer and kinda makes their combat routine pretty boring. Spell + Song just...
On bards: Even worse, it seems like everyone wants focus cantrips to be the new solution for every class moving forward, to be as all day sustainable as the bard. But the bard really is one of the most predictable and least exciting classes to play, and giving any future classes repeatable actions that are obviously better than any other action the character can take is a huge mistake.
On bards: Even worse, it seems like everyone wants focus cantrips to be the new solution for every class moving forward, to be as all day sustainable as the bard. But the bard really is one of the most predictable and least exciting classes to play, and giving any future classes repeatable actions that are obviously better than any other action the character can take is a huge mistake.
On that note, since witches have gone the focus cantrips route, I kind of hope hexes keep the temporary immunity (probably reduced from 24 hours though) so they have a reason to do things other than cast their hexes each turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Which should prompt the designers to make every other casters as fun, engaging and strong as Bards not the other way around.
Just putting it out there, in case nerfs are being considered.
I really, really hope not. Bards have a tendency to turn what should be difficult encounters trivial.
Its not quite so bad since they're a support class and they tend to 'enhance' other players experience instead of truly ruining it, so I don't know that heavy handed nerfs are warranted... but I really don't want to see the sort of power creep that would occur if you buffed other classes to that level.
I think that's a bit of hyperbole a +1 is significant but it's effects only come up 10% of the time. So it shouldn't trivialise encounters.
With bards it is slightly different as it is a +1 to all party members on multiple fronts (as they won't just have courage) and also includes damage. It feels better again as they will have multiple inspiration options available to them as well as boosting options like inspire heroics to boost stuff past the initial +1.
I wouldn't say it trivialises things, but it is more than a plain +1 when it comes to the bard. Especially as it is likely to hit all allies.
And they still have spellcasting on top of this ;)
I think Bard is a strong contender for best class in the game; Composition Cantrips are real good, the Occult list is real good. Don’t think it wins out by some kind of landslide however, and a varied party still wins over a lopsided one which I think is the most important part.
I think that's a bit of hyperbole a +1 is significant but it's effects only come up 10% of the time. So it shouldn't trivialise encounters.
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.Which should prompt the designers to make every other casters as fun, engaging and strong as Bards not the other way around.
Just putting it out there, in case nerfs are being considered.
I really, really hope not. Bards have a tendency to turn what should be difficult encounters trivial.
Its not quite so bad since they're a support class and they tend to 'enhance' other players experience instead of truly ruining it, so I don't know that heavy handed nerfs are warranted... but I really don't want to see the sort of power creep that would occur if you buffed other classes to that level.
A bard, with Inspire Heroics, can shift numbers by something like 4 points in three actions with only a success on a Performance check and a failed save by the target in three actions.
At high levels, Scare to Death lets them do that in two actions, with one of those being from Quickened, and the significantly above zero chance of imposing an even bigger numerical shift.
It is WAY more than a "+1". The class has a ton of access to target number manipulation and is capable of independently applying a ton of it, on demand, with incomparable efficiency.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing how balancing is usually done in TTRPGs, I think the Bard getting nerfed has a little to null chance of happening. If you nerf something you deem too powerful, you create a divise in the community, because, unlike a virtual game, some people who think the nerfs were unwarrented will just ignore them, and the more you do it the more it creates a snowball. And balancing matters much less compared to a competitive videogame, as long as one party member doesn't outshine the others. I'm pretty sure they'll only directly nerf something if it's busted beyond belief, which I don't think ths Bard is, not even close.
If the Bard is the top bar we have for class power, what I see happening is either bumping some of the lower classes up or just leaving things as they are.
Knowing how balancing is usually done in TTRPGs, I think the Bard getting nerfed has a little to null chance of happening. If you nerf something you deem too powerful, you create a divise in the community, because, unlike a virtual game, some people who think the nerfs were unwarrented will just ignore them, and the more you do it the more it creates a snowball. And balancing matters much less compared to a competitive videogame, as long as one party member doesn't outshine the others. I'm pretty sure they'll only directly nerf something if it's busted beyond belief, which I don't think ths Bard is, not even close.
If the Bard is the top bar we have for class power, what I see happening is either bumping some of the lower classes up or just leaving things as they are.
I'm neither suggesting that Bards be nerfed, or other classes go unfixed.
I'm simply suggesting that using Bards as your standard for class balance would be a huge mistake.
As noted, because Bards are support theyre a bit friendlier as a "Broken" class than a Blaster-Caster would be, since the Bard is passing the actual "Glory" part of encounter to his buddies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate deliberately designing the support classes to be too good at what they do (bards giving out bonuses, clerics healing, and alchemists having the best versatility of support effects). Support classes should be the most powerful. I know some players really like the consistency of doing what they do well without ever rolling dice for the effect, and the bard is definitely the character for that. I much prefer the tactical thrill of trying to match the perfect spell to the encounter and the party, as well as letting the dice determine my fate, and the wizard still is the class that best offers that in PF2.
I appreciate deliberately designing the support classes to be too good at what they do (bards giving out bonuses, clerics healing, and alchemists having the best versatility of support effects). Support classes should be the most powerful. I know some players really like the consistency of doing what they do well without ever rolling dice for the effect, and the bard is definitely the character for that. I much prefer the tactical thrill of trying to match the perfect spell to the encounter and the party, as well as letting the dice determine my fate, and the wizard still is the class that best offers that in PF2.
I think this is an interesting comparison, and comparing these situations has some interesting implications -
Clerics, unlike Bards, seem to suffer from being too easily made redundant. In some parties, their healing is amazing, clutch, and makes the whole thing work. Other players report that they struggle to find anything to do with their Cleric and that the class is "useless" - my hypothesis is that you don't need multiple characters dedicated to damage mitigation in a party, and a shield themed Champion (or similar defensive characrer) can pre-empt the need and remove the role of a Healer Cleric. In their ideal scenario, I agree that they feel almost as good as a Bard. I'm currently playing a healer Cleric in a Extinction Curse party where I'm able to excel.
Alchemists are complicated, and hard to make work. They can be low-key party champions however, making benefits like extra movement speed, omnipresent combat concealment, relevant poison, etc. Totally available. But often, getting it "just right" is difficult and they seem to have a harder time than anyone getting "credit" for their contributions, since they tend to be somewhat invisible unless you're really paying attention.
Bards, by comparison, are transparent and I can't really imagine a party where they don't fit in - barring of course, the scenario with multiple Bards. Though, they have enough variety that I think you could probably make two of them fit together if they were built that way...
To be fair, I think any class could comfortably slot in twice in the same party, if both are built to cover different areas of use.
The only exception to that may be Alchemist, again ;P
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.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.
Weakness exploiting is a legit niche for alchemists but so is any caster who has 2 or 3 damage flavors of cantrips for similar effect. I can't really see it as much of a balance point and your ability to have a bomb for every need is low until you are past level 5 or 6 as you pretty much are making all of your stuff during preparations so don't have anything left for quick alchemy.
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.
It is roughly a 26% average damage adjustment at levels 1-4 vs an equal level foe being 1 ASI lower, it has 0 effect levels 5-9 and 15-19. It is also 1-2 damage extra for the single attack (the extra damage percentage goes down with extra attacks).
Couple this with Alchemists goggles that are essentially a +1 to your attack as a ranged character most of the time (ignore light cover, something you will be fighting against 90% of the time) and quicksilver mutagens. You actually end up ahead of casters as a bomber.
But there is another hidden element that makes it matter less as you level, and that is the sheer number of dice required to roll.
You need to make your attack rolls (a 1-20 dice), then the variables attached to rolling multiple dice, then the variables on the flat checks vs persistent damage.
26% sounds like a lot, but it becomes less as you level, has zero impact on half the levels and the natural entropy of dice means a player is not likely to feel it.
I may have mentioned it elsewhere but recently I had a game session where the alchemist comfortably out damaged the ranging barbarian. Why? because the dice rolled low for the barbarian including damage and the dice were average on the alchemist and even when it missed it was able to do splash damage. Horrible luck on the barbarian's front but it happens and that was over 7 fights that session.
At later levels the alchemist is stuck with expert over master proficiency but by then they are able to do all sorts of things and are quite powerful in their own right when they hit and have the resources to diversify and hit those weaknesses or bypass resistances / communities while debuffing, stacking persistent damage and having fun with poisons.
Alchemists aren't the best built class in the game, but they are far from weak and aren't "bad at throwing bombs", certainly not because of them being one ASI lower.
To get the +3 item bonus a character has to be around lvl 18, while an alchemist unlocks it by lvl 11 with elixirs.
There is difference ( +1, which is a lot) between combatants and the alchenist, but it's not that bad.
I really agree that here it's just worse, but not bad. Instead, mutagenist could use some help.
This is basically a bolt on where it probably should have been to give alchemists master proficiency in bombs and get the specialization for it.
Alchemists aren't the best built class in the game, but they are far from weak and aren't "bad at throwing bombs", certainly not because of them being one ASI lower.
And if they're not the bomber archetype?
Alchemists aren't the best built class in the game, but they are far from weak and aren't "bad at throwing bombs", certainly not because of them being one ASI lower.And if they're not the bomber archetype?
A full support elixir generator is going to do well with their 3 elixirs per reagent (significantly better as we get more options), the poisoner option will likely be an incredibly powerful option when it comes with the APG, we shall see, mutagenist... no idea not looked into it Cr1t's charts suggested it kept up damage wise early into the release of the edition but I don't care enough to run the numbers. They could also work in support but the whole downside element to them as well as their feats mainly only adjusting mutagens they imbibe makes it less appealing than elixir focused alchemists imo.
Add to this that when alchemists get to later levels they will have enough spare reagents to have some bombs as well if they want, selective splash isn't that powerful of an ability and the bomber archetype is more for perpetual and its interactions with other feats imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Snip
Wait... but Alchemist's goggles give an item bonus. Higher-leveled bombs also give an item bonus.
Bonuses of the same type don't stack, right?
SnipWait... but Alchemist's goggles give an item bonus. Higher-leveled bombs also give an item bonus.
Bonuses of the same type don't stack, right?
Correct!
Alchemist goggles also let you ignore lesser cover, which is where the +1 might be coming from.SnipWait... but Alchemist's goggles give an item bonus. Higher-leveled bombs also give an item bonus.
Bonuses of the same type don't stack, right?
But you get basically the same benefits from Uncanny Bomber, which you're probably gonna take for the range increase.
The goggles are there for lower level Bombs, basically. Regardless, it's terrible investment, IMO. I much rather spend my money on fun utility stuff like Healer's Gloves, Elven Cloak/Boots, etc.
The goggles are there for lower level Bombs, basically.
They're 100 gold! You don't have that much until 4th and your bombs get that same bonus at 3rd...
The goggles are there for lower level Bombs, basically.They're 100 gold! You don't have that much until 4th and your bombs get that same bonus at 3rd...
Yeah, but you still can spam the lower level bombs with the Bomber's Perpetual Infusions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but you still can spam the lower level bombs with the Bomber's Perpetual Infusions.The goggles are there for lower level Bombs, basically.They're 100 gold! You don't have that much until 4th and your bombs get that same bonus at 3rd...
So...a fourth level item combined with a seventh level class feature makes a 1st level item viable...
So...a fourth level item combined with a seventh level class feature makes a 1st level item viable...Yeah, but you still can spam the lower level bombs with the Bomber's Perpetual Infusions.The goggles are there for lower level Bombs, basically.They're 100 gold! You don't have that much until 4th and your bombs get that same bonus at 3rd...
To be fair, it does mean that Alchemists can keep themselves prepared for the long-haul. You never know when you're gonna have prolonged or even multiple fights without a chance to restock, rest, or even heal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a fair point about longevity (although the goggles fill the same niche as quicksilver mutagens in that regard).
One of my many complaints about the Alchemist is kind of on that front. Bombers are the only specialization that feel like they get to utilize perpetual alchemy in a logical way: perpetual bombs are essentially your cantrips, cheap damage options you can throw out in a pinch and cover for when you might be having reagent issues.
Perpetual antiplauges are a bit weirder, because their mechanics mean you'd only create a handful of them in a day anyways. It is, essentially some free save bonuses you can hand out to your party every day so there is that.
Perpetual mutagens don't feel very well thought out to me though, both because mutagens are already the most resource efficient option and because their scaling tends to be a bit more important, because their advantages are at risk of being subsumed by permanent items once they fall behind the curve. You can still make decent use out of some of the skill options in a pinch, but it definitely feels like it does the worst job being a meaningful resource saver or fallback option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, it does mean that Alchemists can keep themselves prepared for the long-haul. You never know when you're gonna have prolonged or even multiple fights without a chance to restock, rest, or even heal.
While true my point was more that it shouldn't take a 7th level class feature (and a magic item) to do that.
Wizards have cantrips that serve that same purpose at level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, it does mean that Alchemists can keep themselves prepared for the long-haul. You never know when you're gonna have prolonged or even multiple fights without a chance to restock, rest, or even heal.While true my point was more that it shouldn't take a 7th level class feature (and a magic item) to do that.
Wizards have cantrips that serve that same purpose at level 1.
Wizards also can't sell off their cantrips or hand them off to someone else. Not without investing in crafting, which Alchemists more or less already do.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perpetual bombs are better than real bombs once you get Sticky and Debilitating honestly. I wouldn’t make real bombs once I was level 8 or 9 (depending on if I wanted double brew so I can QA->Bomb->Bomb) and definitely not by level 11 when I have a permanent quicksilver up. Before then, 60GP for the goggles is definitely not a terrible investment. It lets you ignore cover until you get a 12th level feat, and makes your perpetuals equal your normal hit bonus without quicksilver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SnipWait... but Alchemist's goggles give an item bonus. Higher-leveled bombs also give an item bonus.
Bonuses of the same type don't stack, right?
I made the Alchemist Goggles add +1d4 precision damage on bombs per goggle ranking. The item seems like it was one of items that a review missed. They should be a great item for an alchemist, but they're not. They're not even great for a non-alchemist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question would it be bad if Alchemical items gave an +1 alchemical bonus instead of the current +X item bonus?
I mean, giving a +1 Alchemical will have alchemist keep up, and keep other items useful. The difference between the different tiers of items can then be spent on better duration, secondary effects, quirky effects, conditional effects, etc.
Ex: Quicksilver Mutagen could give a +1 alchemical bonus. The improved version could then deal less self damage. While the greater version could have a better duration.
Would that had been unbalanced?
I think they wanted to keep away from adding new bonus types to classes. It might not be an issue with just alchemist, but the next expert class might add an occult bonus, the next one adds an elemental bonus... then you just get +1 stacking again like it was in 3.x.
I would change them to a +1 status bonus over breaking open the "only 3 types of bonuses exist".
|
|
I think they wanted to keep away from adding new bonus types to classes. It might not be an issue with just alchemist, but the next expert class might add an occult bonus, the next one adds an elemental bonus... then you just get +1 stacking again like it was in 3.x.
I would change them to a +1 status bonus over breaking open the "only 3 types of bonuses exist".
Its not a class bonus, just an alchemical item bonus. All alchemy =/= Alchemist.
But for my idea, whether its status, alchemical, circumstantial or whatever the question still stands. Would it had been unbalanced to have the bonus from alchemical items stack with magical item bonuses?
**********************
Side note, I dont see how adding a 4th bonus type opens up the table for more, but okay.
I’m not really sure if it’s weaker or stronger. On one hand, it’s far easier to get a circumstance or status bonus than an item bonus higher than what you already have. On the other hand, it means a level 1 Mutagen provides a +1 at all levels - and they’re trivially cheap at some point so you can get a +1 all day if you want.
Adding a 4th bonus type makes it easier to add a 5th bonus type for a new class that also wants higher than expert, lower than master proficiency, which makes it easier to add a sixth. It’s a slippery slope fallacy, sure, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily untrue either.
Wait... but Alchemist's goggles give an item bonus. Higher-leveled bombs also give an item bonus.
Bonuses of the same type don't stack, right?
Bonuses of the same type don't stack, right?Correct!
I mean, I was quite clear that I was referring to the ignoring cover element.
Couple this with Alchemists goggles that are essentially a +1 to your attack as a ranged character most of the time (ignore light cover, something you will be fighting against 90% of the time) and quicksilver mutagens. You actually end up ahead of casters as a bomber.
But you get basically the same benefits from Uncanny Bomber, which you're probably gonna take for the range increase.
The level 13 feat? Yes it is a good feat, and certainly another way to enhance the alchemist's math. But that is kinda my point, they aren't bad throwers. 100GP is nothing in the long term and as yourself and others stated the item bonus doesn't matter for much so who cares about upgrading it unless you are using it for perpetual infusions levels 7+ and don't like the idea of using quicksilver mutagen.
Their math is barely behind someone with a ranged weapon who ends up with master accuracy, and even then only for 10 out of 20 levels. And during the first 4 levels where you have less options to adjust for the ASI deficit it makes so little difference it doesn't matter to game balance or "feel".