Why Don't Alchemists Attack With Intelligence?

[Artificial 20]

Is there a reason not to?

Some people consider the alchemist flawed, and addressing that can be complicated and get into intricate design elements, but this change is so simple.

I checked all the core classes' key abilities and attack roll abilities. Alchemist is the only one that cannot attack with their key ability.

Core Classes: Key Abilities / Attack Rolls:

Non-Casters With Weapons
Alchemist Key Ability: Int
Alchemist Attack Roll: Str or Dex

Barbarian Key Ability: Str
Barbarian Attack Roll: Str or Dex

Champion Key Ability: Str or Dex
Champion Attack Roll: Str or Dex

Fighter Key Ability: Str or Dex
Fighter Attack Roll: Str or Dex

Monk Key Ability: Str or Dex
Monk Attack Roll: Str or Dex

Ranger Key Ability: Str or Dex
Ranger Attack Roll: Str or Dex

Rogue Key Ability: Dex or (Racket)
Rogue Attack Roll: Str or Dex

Casters With Spells
Bard Key Ability: Cha
Bard Attack Roll: Cha

Cleric Key Ability: Wis
Cleric Attack Roll: Wis

Druid Key Ability: Wis
Druid Attack Roll: Wis

Sorcerer Key Ability: Cha
Sorcerer Attack Roll: Cha

Wizard Key Ability: Int
Wizard Attack Roll: Int

This wouldn't be a complicated change. Look I'll write it right now:

Using Intelligence wrote:

Since your key ability is Intelligence, your attack rolls and DCs with items that have the Alchemical trait, and with attacks and abilities granted by items that have the Alchemical trait, use your Intelligence modifier.

Why not let them do this? Picturing an alchemist using intelligence to calculate bomb trajectory seems pretty credible, and none of the mutagenist mutagens have a drawback that penalises intelligence, so an alchemist combining physical mutation with a razor mind to strike brutally and surgically sounds on theme, and would be unique and cool.

Am I missing exploits or interactions that makes this a bad idea?

[Seisho]

I guess the 'problem' is consisted out of multiple smaller ones

1. Pathfinder 2 goes away from using whatever score you like for whatever (with the right feats you could use almost every score to attack and in some cases that became weird since you could pool everything into one score sooner or later)

2. Alchemist is in the weird place that he is (up to now) the only class that has a divergence between beeing mental based and beeing able to attack with mental stats, Usually its casters stick to mental stats and non-casters to physical

3. Imagine a mutagenist transforming into a lumbering hulk attacking with intelligence besides having a malus on it - would be not very useful and not very fitting

4. Alchemists have widespread possibilites to attack (light and heavy melee, ranged weapons, bombs) and if you tie only one of them to the score others feel left out but on the other hand it does not neccessarily fit

5. beeing able to calculate the bomb trajectory means nothing if you got neither the strength nor the dexterity if to accurately throw a bomb far enough

and about your list of characters with the ability to attack with their key stat, I mean...it'S technically correct but still a bit on the cherry picking side

1. rogue has a charisma and an upcoming int racket, both still need either strength or dexterity

2. druids who wildshape are either relying on their form or their unarmed attack, wild morph specifically on their unarmed attack so they also can't use their core stat

3. Warpriests also don't use their key ability

4. there are several physical options for different non-physical classes who of course also can't use their key ability

so while an alchemist has a higher need to use a non-key ability, there are enough (and more coming) class variations with a similar problem

(also, it is not that hard to have two abilities up to a reasonable score)

[The Gleeful Grognard]

I wonder if the investigator study target ability will transfer to the alchemist via the dedication, that could be a fun combo.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't see how "being smart" makes it easier to hit someone in combat. I'm of the mind that for mundane attacks (swords, arrows, stuff you throw) using any stat other than strength or dexterity is inappropriate.

You could do a feat or something that lets you spend an action to watch an opponent to study them to increase your odds of hitting, but this should never be a thing you can do without effort for a low level character.

[WatersLethe]

Down that road lies bland, homogenous, Diablo 3 style [Attack Stat] gameplay.

I was on the fence with casters making ranged touch attacks with their casting stat already.

[Loreguard]

I thought they said the investigator was going to have an ability to roll an attack, see what they got, and decide if they want to preform the attack or not. Presumably, if they don't they then don't suffer MAP on it, or maybe although I doubt it, it might not use an action. I thought I had heard that special type of attack was going to be allowed to use INT.

Perhaps instead of making it, you get to use INT for any attacks, suddenly dropping the importance of STR or DEX potentially significantly for some builds. What if alchemists got a special ability that if their INT was at least +1 bonus higher than their STR or DEX bonus. When making attacks with that attribute, they get a +1 (Status or Circumstance, not sure which would be more appropriate) bonus to it due to their ability to calculate advantageous information quickly, be it trajectories or leverage points, speeds, centrifugal motion effects, etc. Perhaps it might be limited to bombs, unarmed attacks, and other weapons with which they are trained already, or perhaps even only normal weapons for an alchemist if that is determined to really be an issue being more generally available.

This would mean that having the higher INT will boost their attack roll with a variety of weapons a tiny bit, without having to invest in all three completely. But it also doesn't make it easy to simply forgo the other two attack stats, as it isn't a complete attribute change, it just gives you a boost of +1.

[Artificial 20]

Seisho wrote:

1. Pathfinder 2 goes away from using whatever score you like for whatever

3. Imagine a mutagenist transforming into a lumbering hulk attacking with intelligence besides having a malus on it - would be not very useful and not very fitting

4. Alchemists have widespread possibilites to attack (light and heavy melee, ranged weapons, bombs)

5. beeing able to calculate the bomb trajectory means nothing if you got neither the strength nor the dexterity if to accurately throw a bomb far enough

P2E lets casters use their casting ability to make spell attack rolls. I imagined the scenario you present, it's not difficult to pull off. Casters are in the same boat of having a variety of weapons, yet cast through their key ability. Strength doesn't affect bombs as is.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't see how "being smart" makes it easier to hit someone in combat.

Do you see how being charismatic makes your magical rays more accurate?

WatersLethe wrote:

Down that road lies bland, homogenous, Diablo 3 style [Attack Stat] gameplay.

I was on the fence with casters making ranged touch attacks with their casting stat already.

Down that road lies every other class in the edition's core rulebook. Do you exclusively play alchemists then?

Loreguard wrote:

I thought they said the investigator was going to have an ability to roll an attack, see what they got, and decide if they want to preform the attack or not. Presumably, if they don't they then don't suffer MAP on it, or maybe although I doubt it, it might not use an action. I thought I had heard that special type of attack was going to be allowed to use INT.

Perhaps instead of making it, you get to use INT for any attacks, suddenly dropping the importance of STR or DEX potentially significantly for some builds. What if alchemists got a special ability that if their INT was at least +1 bonus higher than their STR or DEX bonus. When making attacks with that attribute, they get a +1 (Status or Circumstance, not sure which would be more appropriate) bonus to it due to their ability to calculate advantageous information quickly, be it trajectories or leverage points, speeds, centrifugal motion effects, etc. Perhaps it might be limited to bombs, unarmed attacks, and other weapons with which they are trained already, or perhaps even only normal weapons for an alchemist if that is determined to really be an issue being more generally available.

This would mean that having the higher INT will boost their attack roll with a variety of weapons a tiny bit, without having to invest in all three completely. But it also doesn't make it easy to simply forgo the other two attack stats, as it isn't a complete attribute change, it just gives you a boost of +1.

You raise several very good points. That's the kind of sophisticated fix I alluded to as being possible. I was aiming towards something simpler.

I don't think that this would forgo the other 2 attack abilities. Str is still used for damage, and if very available finesse weapons haven't widely obsoleted the ability score, 1 class getting similar on some attacks is unlikely to break it. It might make combat mutagenists competent. Dex increases AC and reflex saves so it is still valuable too, just as it is on casters.

[PossibleCabbage]

Artificial 20 wrote:

Do you see how being charismatic makes your magical rays more accurate?

Because magic is imaginary and it works the way the game designers want it to work. The game is entirely consistent on "casters have a casting stat, which varies between different kinds, and having a high amount of it makes them better at magic." There's no need for verisimilitude because it's all made up.

Having one class use Dex to throw things at you, and one class use Int to throw those same things at you is inconsistent, and doesn't make a lot of sense.

The alchemist needs help but "use Int to throw bombs" isn't the help it needs.

[generaltwig]

I like this as a simple fix. I let the alchemist at my table use INT for bombs and it definitely improves their effectiveness and enjoyment. They weren’t outshining other PCs. Clever little tweak to make if you have an alchemist player who’s feeling underpowered.

[siegfriedliner]

So it is a bit of an issue with casters and Alchemists attack rolls that in the playtest they were targeting touch AC which was 2 or 3 points lower and when paizo ditched touched AC they didn't improve those classes ability to hit. So spell attacks and bombs are in-accurate.

Personally I feel bombs should be reflex saves anyway. Which could then be based on class dc.

[Deadmanwalking]

In the playtest, all casters made attacks with Dex, but usually Touch Attacks (Touch AC being usually 1 to 3 points lower than normal AC). For the final game, they got rid of Touch AC and switched casters over to using Casting Stat on attacks, which was helpful in terms of accuracy.

Alchemist received no equivalent power up, getting left entirely behind (yes, they get item bonuses to attack, which casters don't...but that was true in the playtest, too).

Honestly, that's what happened to a lot of stuff involving Alchemist between the playtest and the finished game. The adjustments made to the other Classes to deal with the fundamental rules changes between the two were very well done...but whoever converted the Alchemist had a lamentable lapse in that regard.

Which is not intended as an insult to anyone at Paizo, everyone makes mistakes, but the playability issues with Alchemist are very real. Of course, bombers are by far the best Alchemist build even now, so just House Ruling in Int to bombs, while it's helpful for them, just leaves other Alchemists even further behind.

[Ediwir]

There's the small footnote that we are talking uniquely about bombs, which are the only attack in the game that hits on a miss by default.

Alchemists attack using simple weapons more than bombs for a long time, unless you're burning all your reagents on bombs and foregoing most of your formulas. You should have a decent Str/Dex anyways, even if you were to use Int for bombs...

[Artificial 20]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Artificial 20 wrote:

Do you see how being charismatic makes your magical rays more accurate?

Because magic is imaginary and it works the way the game designers want it to work.

This is true of alchemist abilities.

generaltwig / siegfriedliner / Deadmanwalking / Ediwir: Thank you for your contributions.

Specifically replying to the "bombs" comments, my suggestion does include the following: "with attacks and abilities granted by items that have the Alchemical trait". So this would also boost mutagens, such as the unarmed jaw and claw attacks gifted by bestial mutagen. It's not just a bomb buff.

[PossibleCabbage]

But throwing a baseball sized object or striking an opponent with your limbs are not imaginary things even if we imagine fantastical aspects of doing it (the baseball is a cold bomb, your hands have claws).

Being smart isn't going to make anybody better at throwing a fist or a fist-sized object more accurately.

[Samurai]

My Alchemist House Rules feature a way for each Alchemist subclass to use their Int bonus in a unique way.

The Bomber can use Int instead of Dex when throwing Bombs.

The Chirurgeon adds his Int bonus to the damage healed with his Elixirs of Life.

The Mutagenist can add his Int bonus to his AC instead of his Dex bonus.

The Toxicologist (a new field of study I created) adds it as a circumstance bonus to his saves vs Poison.

But however you do it, I definitely agree they need SOME actual uses of their Int bonus.

[vagrant-poet]

Your goals: Simple low math numerical buff that makes all alchemists more effective.

Samurai's research field Int uses seem fine, though seems most effective for the bomber, who is already the most powerful field. Fair warning.

Suggestions: Alchemist's increase item bonuses from alchemical items by 1.

No further knock-on effects or considerations. Just a small, easy to implement bump across the board.

[siegfriedliner]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't see how "being smart" makes it easier to hit someone in combat. I'm of the mind that for mundane attacks (swords, arrows, stuff you throw) using any stat other than strength or dexterity is inappropriate.

You could do a feat or something that lets you spend an action to watch an opponent to study them to increase your odds of hitting, but this should never be a thing you can do without effort for a low level character.

You are calculating the angles, wind resistance, the enemies movements and using the information predict the optimal arc and timing. You doing a Sherlock Holmes in the silly Downy Junior movies.

[scary harpy]

so...when someone asks What classes would you like to see next in 2e? or What ONE Class should be prioritized for Aug 2021, one of the answers should be a revised/updated Alchemist.

I don't see a point in adding a Magus or Summoner while this original base classes is second-rate at best.

[Aricks]

Ediwir wrote:

There's the small footnote that we are talking uniquely about bombs, which are the only attack in the game that hits on a miss by default.

Alchemists attack using simple weapons more than bombs for a long time, unless you're burning all your reagents on bombs and foregoing most of your formulas. You should have a decent Str/Dex anyways, even if you were to use Int for bombs...

For one point of damage. You do one point of damage if you miss. Once you get to level 3 it does 2 points of damage. At level 4 it does int mod damage if you take a feat. It also doesn't apply any of the bombs effects, and it only hits the target, not the area. At 10 it does int mod plus 2 for the cost of another feat. It's not nothing but let's be realistic about how much is being done.

Which is part of the reason alchemist feats are often called "math fixes". No new abilities, no new attacks, just that thing you were doing already is slightly better. Granted, you occasionally get new elixir types as you level but it's less often than a caster gets new spells.

[Yako Zenko]

I am, personally, holding out hope for more alchemist fun-feats (rather than math fixers) in the APG.

[PossibleCabbage]

siegfriedliner wrote:

You are calculating the angles, wind resistance, the enemies movements and using the information predict the optimal arc and timing. You doing a Sherlock Holmes in the silly Downy Junior movies.

Being able to do this without actions and pen and paper is a high level ability, not something you give to level 1 characters.

[kaid]

Yako Zenko wrote:

I am, personally, holding out hope for more alchemist fun-feats (rather than math fixers) in the APG.

The issue being you still would have to take t he math fixing feats first anyway and then may just get more grumpy that you can't afford to take the fun ones yet.

Honestly them just baking in a couple of the math fix feats bombers get helps mutagenists and healer alchemists too by letting them throw a bomb now and then and have it feel more impactful. Also baking in the int modifier to damage is not out of wack compared to cantrips and makes you feel better for maxing your supposed key stat. Keep their attack stat dex is fine but int should feel more overall useful to you in combat than it currently does.

[Ediwir]

Aricks wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

There's the small footnote that we are talking uniquely about bombs, which are the only attack in the game that hits on a miss by default.

Alchemists attack using simple weapons more than bombs for a long time, unless you're burning all your reagents on bombs and foregoing most of your formulas. You should have a decent Str/Dex anyways, even if you were to use Int for bombs...

For one point of damage. You do one point of damage if you miss.

That's the problem.

That, right there, is the problem.

You use bombs as a main attack. They're not. They're a versatile elemental damage effect.

Use. Bombs. When. It. Matters.

Do: Deal the enemy level of damage on a miss. Deal large damage plus level plus splash plus area on a hit.

Do not: Burn precious limited reagents several times per turn on simple attacks that do not work much better than a shortbow.

Remember Admixture? This is what this is. It doesn't mean blasting is any better as a default, it means you always have the right one when it matters.
Do we really need to rest for the day after one room? Come on.

[TwilightKnight]

I'm not a fan of Alchemists using Int for their bombs because it creates two sets of rules for throwing bombs. One of the main issues I had with 1E alchemists was their exceptions-based rules. example, for everyone else who summoned a swarm, it became an independent creature once it appeared, but vomit swarm allowed the alchemist to control (or at least strongly influence) the swarm. No one else, without some additional magic or skill (such as speak with insects) could exert that control. Also, for everyone, drawing an alchemical item from their belt was a move action, but suddenly an alchemist somehow had some extraordinary power that allowed them to draw it with the same action they used it. And there were others.

The fundamental aspects of bombs should work the same for everyone with alchemists being able to enhance their bombs in some way based on their specialized training. I could maybe be convinced that an alchemist should be able to apply Int to damage similar to how a rogue can used dex for damage, but not for attacks. Besides, I've seen a number of bombers at the table and none of them seemed to be lacking in effectiveness. I don't think their bombs are the problem. I have seen a mutagenist and that one needed some help.

[Amaya/Polaris]

Throwing bombs with planning rather than raw accuracy sounds like specialized training to me. It also sounds less invasive/alternate ruleset-y than improving the effects of their items, though that's likely still a simpler solution (and it would help out the Jekyll and Hyde types as well).

In general, I don't like the idea of keeping Alchemists hard-constrained to realism in actually using their pseudo-magical abilities when the design of this edition is allowing even "mundane" classes like Fighters and Rogues to skirt reality with their own training/resources where cool and appropriate. I also don't like that Alchemists have nothing suitably flavorful to do when their limited resources run out early on, having neither good weapons nor cantrips, and touting this as divine design to be kept rather than suggesting something fun fill in the blanks (without being a lightly flavored weapon from an AP or something). It reminds me of the "having only one type of shield for blocking is great" arguments elsewhere...

At any rate, bombs are limited resources that compete with other alchemical items, and I think that in itself pays for the relatively small splash damage and added effects. Putting more restrictions on them than that strikes me as unnecessary.