Do you think I am being harsh or missing some grain of effectiveness.
For a reason I don't know people never speak about poisons.
If you consider poisons to deal 1d6 of damage every 2 levels (the issue is that most poisons have a debuff component, but the pure damaging ones roughly follow that damage trend), then a dose of poison does half a Greatsword Barbarian secondary attack damage on application.
If you compare poisons to bombs, you see that a dose of poison deals 2/3rd of the damage on application of an Alchemist Fire thrown by a bomber alchemist with all the splash increasing feats. And that's just on application, so direct damage without considering the recurrent damage poisons do.
And poisons don't cost actions!
So, poisons aren't funny as you don't do anything to use them, but it's a tool that should not be overlooked. Free damage is free damage, and in the case of poison, it's nice free damage.
Blue: Dragon Barbarian secondary attack.
Red: Alchemist Fire thrown by a fully specced Alchemist.
Green: Flaming Sphere with 1 less die (the closest I've found to poison) and -1 to attack (monsters have high fort saves).
I haven't counted Alchemist Fire Persistent damage or Poison subsequent stages. Also Poison crits are counted as double damage.
With the APG the missing poison focused dedication is coming and depending how it works that could be up with bomber for reasonable options for alchemists. I think one thing that is hard to predict is how well alchemists do as more and more items for them become available. at mid later level the bigger the item diversity the better alchemists will be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what the optimal way to play an alchemist is, but it's definitely not "try to do what another class does."
Too many people who complain about the alchemist compare it on another class on the other class's terms. If you compare it to a melee fighter in the context of going up and Striking a bunch, you're going to be at an inherent disadvantage. If you compare it to a spellcaster with unlimited cantrips, you're going to be at an inherent disadvantage when you deal with limited reagents. And if you ask, "if an alchemist isn't a fighter and isn't a spellcaster, what is it," then you begin to understand why alchemist is a core class and not a fighter archetype or a wizard archetype.
The most useful way of thinking about the class is encapsulated in a Reddit thread title: "Alchemists don't suck, you suck at playing an alchemist." It's unnecessarily inflammatory (and the thread has a lot of questionable advice) but the fundamental point is valid - don't try to build a druid with potions, build an alchemist on an alchemist's terms.
Honestly, all things considered, I think an alchemist is a little below average, so on par with the other 5 classes that are below average. It's definitely not overpowered. But it's way better than detractors make it out to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what the optimal way to play an alchemist is, but it's definitely not "try to do what another class does."
Too many people who complain about the alchemist compare it on another class on the other class's terms. If you compare it to a melee fighter in the context of going up and Striking a bunch, you're going to be at an inherent disadvantage. If you compare it to a spellcaster with unlimited cantrips, you're going to be at an inherent disadvantage when you deal with limited reagents. And if you ask, "if an alchemist isn't a fighter and isn't a spellcaster, what is it," then you begin to understand why alchemist is a core class and not a fighter archetype or a wizard archetype.
The most useful way of thinking about the class is encapsulated in a Reddit thread title: "Alchemists don't suck, you suck at playing an alchemist." It's unnecessarily inflammatory (and the thread has a lot of questionable advice) but the fundamental point is valid - don't try to build a druid with potions, build an alchemist on an alchemist's terms.
Honestly, all things considered, I think an alchemist is a little below average, so on par with the other 5 classes that are below average. It's definitely not overpowered. But it's way better than detractors make it out to be.
I think one of the big hits against alchemists is they in a lot of ways don't really feel like a PF2 class. They have a lot of clunkyness and math fixing stuff like pathfinder 1 classes. Weird stuff like their key stat is int but other than DC and reagents per day don't really use it for much. Most classes in PF2 you can feel free to take a dedication and be assured you can do your job as your chosen class and the archetype is mostly for extra options and side utility stuff. For an alchemist they have so many basically required feats to even do their basic job and keep their numbers even in the ball park of where they should be it limits them in ways other classes don't get limited. Bomber alchemists if you take their fixer feats are fully functional. Rought first few levels but overall basically work. Mutagenists are a total mess even with their dedication change and chirugeons while capable of generating a ton for healing have some of the most obnoxious hurdles to get that healing to people action wise. So you are in a weird situation where you basically either give people their healing potions during rest periods for the next fight and then once the fight starts basically just plink with a bow while people use your stuff for you or you spend a ton of actions moving into position to drawing and administering them. They would really benefit from getting some ranged ability to apply their heals like a bio hacker.
keep their numbers even in the ball park of where they should be
And how do you determkne where they should be?
Funny to see this thread, as I was just thinking about the same exact topic.
The high degree of overlap in their oeuvre or "palette" is pretty ironic, considering "tech" vs "nature" dichotomy.
Although Elemental/Control, Polymorph, and Healing IS Alch's core schtick, it's probably fair to note that
Alchemy isn't theoretically limited by magical Essences/Traditions, so COULD cover other stuff in future...
(as 1E archetypes psychonaut, dimensional excavator, and others expanding beyond strict body/elemental genres)
That said, I think Alchemy brings interesting differences to the table, in comparison to Druid/Primal Sorc.
They eventually get lots of Reagents that offer the best of both Prepared (2x/3x efficiency) and Spontaneous (Quick Alchemy).
Druids are stuck with Prep and few slots, Sorcerors still relatively few slots and Spontaneous's strategic inflexibility.
Alchemist is also less tied to "Casting Stat", with Mutagenists and Bombers seeming inclined to put Apex Item in STR/DEX,
and with limited benefit from "max INT" builds (attachment to that concept I think causing much of cognitive dissonance to the class).
Chirurgeon really seems like it would get the most out of max INT build with it's Craft/Medicine swap, but feels lacking there,
perhaps deserving further synergy, like ability to combine Medicine healing + Life Elixers, or even Antiplague/Venom too,
and I tend to feel some sort of free 'forensic' Knowledge check would also be appropriate and synergize with max INT build.
I tend to disagree when people say there are a lot of tax feats for an Alchemist. Alchemical Familiar is important if you want to deliver one action elixirs. Quick Bomber, Calculated Splash and Expanded Splash are important if you want to efficiently use bombs. Feral Mutagen if you're more into mutagens. And that's all. 5 feats, considering that bombs and mutagens tend to be mutually exclusive as they are based on different abilities. It's a bit more than other classes but not crazy high. There's a lot of space for other feats.
keep their numbers even in the ball park of where they should beAnd how do you determkne where they should be?
Because if they don't take certain feats they start falling even further behind cantrips. Why would you want to have a class whose main attack mode is limited number per day and can't even keep up with cantrips for damage. If you take all the feats they are at least comparable and at times better than cantrips although still much less than spells.
Because if they don't take certain feats they start falling even further behind cantrips.keep their numbers even in the ball park of where they should beAnd how do you determkne where they should be?
So you want the alchemist to be a spellcaster.
So you want the alchemist to be a spellcaster.Because if they don't take certain feats they start falling even further behind cantrips.keep their numbers even in the ball park of where they should beAnd how do you determkne where they should be?
Even if bomb oriented feats are not at all mandatory, it's true that without the proper feats bomb damage goes too low to consider throwing bombs. If you want bombs to be usable, you need a collection of feats and attributes investment.
It's actually the biggest investment you can find in an Alchemist. Bestial Mutagens also ask for quite some investment, mostly attributes. Poison and Elixirs ask for nearly no investment to be used at proper efficiency.
Remember at level 7 the alchemist can throw 3 bombs per round using zero resources as opposed to one cantrip. So 3d6+12 vs. 4d4+4
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll use the Quick Bomber example to highlight what I mean about the comparisons being poor.
Most people assume Quick Bomber is necessary. After all, alchemists could draw and throw with a standard action in PF1, and martial classes in PF2 only need to draw their weapons once. So, it's often assumed and unchallenged that spending an action or two every round to draw a flask is ridiculous.
... and yet ...
Let's ask: how often do you WANT to throw three bombs? Or even two?
Let's ask: how often are you even going to use Advanced Alchemy if you get Debilitating Bombs and Perpetual Infusions?
Radical proposal that really isn't that radical if you think about it: Quick Bomber isn't an essential math-fixer.
To be clear, I think Quick Bomber is a very good feat. But I don't think it's crazy to entertain the idea that a bomber goes without it, and it may be downright smart to take it and retrain out of it later.
---
Radical proposal that really isn't that radical if you think about it: Calculating DPR is silly in PF2.
In PF1, DPR was a useful metric: there weren't a lot of things to do in combat other than Strike, and the number of attacks available with a full-round attack grossly outweighed any other option. The optimal combat strategy was to full-round attack, which meant that the damage output in a round was a useful metric.
In PF2, there are way more options available. As a result, DPR is not a useful metric. If a martial character has greater speed than the enemy, Stride-Strike-Stride(away) has a low DPR but is stupidly effective.
So ... how do you evaluate an alchemist, if not DPR? How do you evaluate it, if not by comparing it to other classes?
Short answer: I don't know.
I'm not claiming to be an expert. But here are some ways to quantify the value:
1. Through a debuffer lens (closer to a PF1 witch than anything). Bottled lightning imposes a -2 AC penalty. If an alchemist hits 50% of the time (lower than a martial should be hitting on the first strike!), it's equivalent to imposing a -1 AC penalty most of the time. What is the debuffing effect worth (forget the damage)? Moderate frost vial imposes a -10' speed penalty. What is that worth? What is dazzled worth?
2. Through a utility lens. What if the alchemist sat out every combat, just ran away or hid? Does the alchemist have enough skills and elixirs to boost skills to carry an offsetting value outside of combat? (Those who spend time whining about how few skills wizards have compared to alchemists should be introspective here.) If you face an aquatic combat and your alchemist can provide sea touch elixirs for the party, how much is that worth? If the alchemist can save a trip back to town to pick up antiplague elixirs, what is that worth?
3. Through a non-traditional combat lens. Without widely-available AoOs, the variety of actions that can be done in melee range has grossly expanded. What if the alchemist didn't attack, just took Shield Block and hid behind a Study Shield absorbing damage up front, self-healing with elixirs of life or healing potions, and had the capability of auto-repairing their shield to max health after a fight? What would be the value of that 0.00 DPR strategy?
To reiterate: I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do know that if you're making all bombs with Advanced Alchemy and throwing 3/turn, you're going to miss a lot, run out of bombs, feel like you're not keeping up with martials or spellcasters, and - the kicker - not have the capacity to do anything else because you spent all your resources trying to compete on the barbarian's turf. That's why most people complain about alchemists, and it's silly.
Once you stop looking at alchemists through a DPR lens, or even through a comparison lens, you start seeing that alchemists aren't terrible. They may not be good, but they're not terrible.
And remember, half the classes are below average.
Radical proposal that really isn't that radical if you think about it: Calculating DPR is silly in PF2.
I partly agree with you.
Like you, I consider that Research Fields are small specializations and that a properly played Alchemist should cover many fields at the same time. As such, only preparing Bombs and trying to compete with martials is badly playing an Alchemist.Still, amongst all you asked, many things can be quantified.
2. Through a utility lens. What if the alchemist sat out every combat, just ran away or hid? Does the alchemist have enough skills and elixirs to boost skills to carry an offsetting value outside of combat? (Those who spend time whining about how few skills wizards have compared to alchemists should be introspective here.) If you face an aquatic combat and your alchemist can provide sea touch elixirs for the party, how much is that worth? If the alchemist can save a trip back to town to pick up antiplague elixirs, what is that worth?
Thanks to skill feats and dedications, it's quite easy to provide utility for the party in PF2. Also, many classes (spellcasters) are good at utility. Utility has a value, but you can't consider that it's a big part of your contribution. If the Alchemist just sat out every combat he would be mostly useless.
3. Through a non-traditional combat lens. Without widely-available AoOs, the variety of actions that can be done in melee range has grossly expanded. What if the alchemist didn't attack, just took Shield Block and hid behind a Study Shield absorbing damage up front, self-healing with elixirs of life or healing potions, and had the capability of auto-repairing their shield to max health after a fight? What would be the value of that 0.00 DPR strategy?
That is a strategy that any class can use, not only the Alchemist. And the Alchemist is not especially good at it. So you can't use that strategy as a selling point for the Alchemist.
Comparing DPA (and not DPR) is an important metric. Because an Alchemist action must be roughly worth a Fighter action. So, if bombs deal as much damage than a Fighter Strike, they are worth it. If they deal 80% of a Fighter Strike, they are a useful tactic, but they must not be the only selling point of the Alchemist. If they deal 50% if a Fighter Strike, then just forget about them, your actions are supposed to be used for better things.
I think utility is a strong argument. I could think of a few encounters where on demand darkvision elixirs or elixir of comprehension would have really been helpful.
A moderate Energy Mutagen is 3rd level elixir with resistance equivalent to a 4th level spell. Would really come in handy for our AoA group.
Also an Alchemist will always have the right damage type to take advantage of any weakness, whereas the fighter probably doesn't.
I think utility is a strong argument. I could think of a few encounters where on demand darkvision elixirs or elixir of comprehension would have really been helpful.
Agreed. But that's the only area where alchemists outshine other classes currently.
A moderate Energy Mutagen is 3rd level elixir with resistance equivalent to a 4th level spell. Would really come in handy for our AoA group.
That's an uncommon option, which means you have to work with your GM to get it in your home game, and makes it inaccessible for the vast majority of Pathfinder Society participants.
Also an Alchemist will always have the right damage type to take advantage of any weakness, whereas the fighter probably doesn't.
IF the alchemist hits. That's a big "if", considering the alchemist's accuracy will tend to be 2 to 4 points behind all other characters of his level.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the question of playability.
If you read the alchemist's entry, read about mutagenists warping their bodies into living weapons and decide you want to play one.
Is "you aren't that great at that but you can hand out darkvision potions and skill bonuses to your party" a satisfactory answer?
Even if handing out darkvision elixirs and skill buffs and holding a shield all combat is a legitimately valuable niche in and of itself, a class failing to deliver on the concepts it suggests and the things players want to accomplish with it still seems like, well, a failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the question of playability.
If you read the alchemist's entry, read about mutagenists warping their bodies into living weapons and decide you want to play one.
Is "you aren't that great at that but you can hand out darkvision potions and skill bonuses to your party" a satisfactory answer?
Even if handing out darkvision elixirs and skill buffs and holding a shield all combat is a legitimately valuable niche in and of itself, a class failing to deliver on the concepts it suggests and the things players want to accomplish with it still seems like, well, a failure.
That's one thing the defenders of the status quo fail to grasp. Handing out free items is good and useful, that's undeniable.
But that doesn't mean the class is supposed to only do that, does it? Why on every other class it's acceptable to have multiple build paths that realize what they set out to do, but somehow the Alchemist doesn't? It's always the same answers with variances of "you're playing the class wrong because you're not being an item dispenser".
Well, I want to be mutated beast with claws that can fight well, why do I have to behave and play like a healer alchemist that spent his life coming up with formulae to help people or a crazy scientist that experiment with volatile substances to achieve explosive effects?
Seems to me that Alchemist fields should be making great impacts on the class' playstyle. This wishy-washy way just make all characters effectively play the same and if somehow you're not, the class undeperforms and it feels like it.
|
Well, I want to be mutated beast with claws that can fight well,
In vague fairness, there is already a class that does this very well (barbarian) or one can achieve this in various ways via archetypes.
Its pretty hard to make this BOTH viable and markedly different from other alternatives.
And lets face it, PF1 pretty much completely failed in making the mutagen based alchemist balanced. Things like the metamorph alchemist are pretty OP.
I kinda sort of think that the mistake was allowing the mutagenist at all, at least at this stage in PF2's development. Too little experience in balancing it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also an Alchemist will always have the right damage type to take advantage of any weakness, whereas the fighter probably doesn't.IF the alchemist hits. That's a big "if", considering the alchemist's accuracy will tend to be 2 to 4 points behind all other characters of his level.
No you don't. Even on a miss, you get a minimum of 1 splash damage, which activates the weakness.
Remember at level 7 the alchemist can throw 3 bombs per round using zero resources as opposed to one cantrip. So 3d6+12 vs. 4d4+4
While it is in theory true you can throw 3 bombs in one round to use the perpetual infusions that uses quick alchemy which takes 1 action. So if you want to just do full round of perpetual bombs it is one action to make two bombs then two attacks to throw. So doing that you are only getting two bombs per turn and if you don't take the math fixes it would be something like 2d8 1 persistant fire 2 splash damage.
You can improve that by taking debilitiating bombs so it does that damage + debuffs but without the math fix feats spamming perpetual infusions is not going to be very impressive damage wise compared to what anybody else is doing.
All that said bomber alchemists are pretty much fine once they get some levels under their belt and by level 7 and if you dedicate your feats to take the support math fixes you can do your class fantasy. You can throw bombs with wild abandon you have enough materials you can freely make plenty of utility stuff while still having enough bombs to last a day. Your perpetual infusions is useful and works well in combination with the various infusion feats to make good debuff decent damage options.
The other two disciplins kind of suffer from the fact their perpetual infusions are either super long duration buffs that there should almost never be a case where you need to do these on the fly or low level mutagens which are okay for whipping out some specific buff but not really something you are using a lot in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that said bomber alchemists are pretty much fine once they get some levels under their belt and by level 7 and if you dedicate your feats to take the support math fixes you can do your class fantasy. You can throw bombs with wild abandon you have enough materials you can freely make plenty of utility stuff while still having enough bombs to last a day. Your perpetual infusions is useful and works well in combination with the various infusion feats to make good debuff decent damage options.
The other two disciplins kind of suffer from the fact their perpetual infusions are either super long duration buffs that there should almost never be a case where you need to do these on the fly or low level mutagens which are okay for whipping out some specific buff but not really something you are using a lot in combat.
I wouldn't be too optimistic on this notion. Our party's Alchemist was a fully optimized Goblin Bomber and the player retired the character when we were level 11. Granted, this is just a single sample and doesn't make an empirically sound argument or anything, but when the player chose an alchemist I made a point to observe how it was performing and how fun it was mechanically. From what I've gathered from 1st to 11th levels was that the damage on a miss is useful, but it is ultimately a consolation prize (Even with a house rule of splash dmg+INT with Calculated Splash only). The player barely used Quick Alchemy, choosing to always prepare ahead to maximize the resources and it still fell short frequently, both because when the Alchemist went nova, it didn't last that much and it was often ineffective due to lack bonuses (and the occasional low rolls). Honestly, as a party member I've never justified its presence. People always say "but Alchemists can always trigger weaknesses with ease", well that's cool and all, but in play it's quite rare, at least in Age of Ashes.
Regardless, the player is playing with a 2-H Redeemer and is really satisfied dealing a s$@! ton of damage, healing and defending the teammates, not to mention the insanely good AC (only better if it was with a Shield).
I wait for the APG to give really nice options to the Alchemist.
Poisons are not final currently, and it's one of the 4 main tools of the Alchemist.
And Familiars are supposed to have a special treatment thanks to the Witch release. A feat giving an extra action per round to the Familiar would allow the Chirurgeon to heal like a Cleric (and I like the image of the familiar running around the battlefield giving elixirs of life to the injured).
I wait for the APG to give really nice options to the Alchemist.
Poisons are not final currently, and it's one of the 4 main tools of the Alchemist.
And Familiars are supposed to have a special treatment thanks to the Witch release. A feat giving an extra action per round to the Familiar would allow the Chirurgeon to heal like a Cleric (and I like the image of the familiar running around the battlefield giving elixirs of life to the injured).
In the spoiler document there's an alchemist feat called "Healing Bomb" that allows you to make an Elixir of Life into a bomb and only a crit failure makes you miss (if the target is willing).
The new Toxicology field already states right out the gate that it applies poisons as one action and uses the class DC instead of the poison's if it's higher.
Spoiler document?