Dismissed Alchemist Early, Changed Mind After Re-Reading

[Plane]

This class looks like a lot of fun. Make 10 alchemical items every day for free at L1? Make as many as 27 at L5? There is versatility to do some interesting builds here like a poisoner and trap-layer. There are some wicked poisons at low levels, and you can put as many as you like on your ammunition for firing at will.

There's healing, buffing, elemental damage + effects, poison, expert weapons at 7th, and you can have max stats for crafting, and not just alchemical crafting but arcane, everything.

This class got put down quite a bit, and I dismissed it, too. Now that I've been re-reading it, I see potential for several neat builds. I understand there are areas where the math is not strong, but I also see areas where you can take advantage. The potential to do "magical" effects in higher volumes than primary spellcasters opens the doors for some cool opportunities.

The Druid got some love here recently and rightly so. Kudos to the Alchemist, too!

[citricking]

The problem is at low levels the alchemical items are really really weak. Like elixirs of life healing 1d6? That's really low… they are nice when they level up though. Bombs are probably the best item at level 1, and bombers are fine once they have enough bombs to use consistently. Healers are fine once they get the level 5 elixir of life. But before that they aren't contributing nearly as much as other characters.

Alchemists just need a cantrip to tide them over until their items get effective enough. I think perpetual bombs at level 1 would really make them fine at all levels, and not need to get a cantrip to feel usable at the lowest levels.

[Deadmanwalking]

Non-bomber alchemists are kind of screwed in a lot of ways, too. I agree that bombers are fine past the very early levels, but non-bombers run into some serious issues in a very non-fun way.

[citricking]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Non-bomber alchemists are kind of screwed in a lot of ways, too. I agree that bombers are fine past the very early levels, but non-bombers run into some serious issues in a very non-fun way.

I used to think that, but with valet+independent familiars giving a free item draw I think churigens level 5+ are very effective too. But all alchemists should probably use bombs at least sometimes even if they aren't bombers.

Giving alchemists bows at least would help them a little too.

[Plane]

At L1, I think this is generous, and it's free:

Giant Centipede Poison
Saving Throw DC 17 Fortitude; Maximum Duration 6
rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison damage (1 round); Stage 2 1d8
poison damage and flat-footed (1 round); Stage 3 1d12 poison
damage, clumsy 1, and flat-footed (1 round)

A human can use their ancestry to start with martial weapons via general feat, use a bow, and pick from their already poisoned arrows whenever they want. At L7, you would miss out on Expert in simple weapons, but you can switch over ahead of time to prepare for Crossbow Ace and do 2d8+2 base with a Hand Xbow at L7 with Expert proficiency. Also available at that level is Giant Wasp Venom followed by L8:

Wyvern Poison
Saving Throw DC 26 Fortitude; Maximum
Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 5d6 poison damage
(1 round); Stage 2 6d6 poison damage (1 round);
Stage 3 8d6 poison damage (1 round)

Plus at this level you can have up to 36 alchemical items. 39 with a familiar plus 3 more for if you have a stat boost item for 42.

There are a lot of fun things you can do. I'm not going to try to argue this is the mathematically ultimate choice, but it sure looks fun and versatile.

[jdripley]

My view on the alchemist is that it's a support class disguised as a striker class.

You look at it, you see Fumbus' art, and you go "sweet, I'm gonna chuck bombs ALL over the place!"

Then you run the numbers and realize that it's not all roses and sunshine, and maybe you're bummed...

BUT the other side is realizing just how broadly versatile you can be. I've seen alchemists hand out Darkvision elixers to the whole party so they can explore a dungeon with stealth. I've seen alchemists hand out Mistform Elixers to the front liners so they can tank really scary enemies and not get quite as smashed up. I've seen Alchemists hand out poisons to the martials so their weapons can deal crazy extra damage. Energy mutagens to save the party from area energy damage. A spot Elixer of Life to get the cleric back on her feet.

So, is the Alchemist, mathematically, on par with, say, a Barbarian striker? Or a Flurry Ranger? Or a Thief Rogue? No. I wouldn't say so. BUT, an Alchemist can do ALL of the things in the above paragraph and STILL throw bombs here and there, and none of those martial strikers have nearly the versatility.

And, I might add, say the Cleric is going to be handing out energy resistance - that takes a substantial number of the spells/day to cover a party. Takes the Alchemist 2 or 3 daily reagents, depending on party size.

Which brings me to mindset and how it impacts your enjoyment of a class. If you derive enjoyment from being the person who enables the rest of the party to shine, I think you'll enjoy Alchemist. If you just want to deal damage, it may or may not be for you.

[shroudb]

Plane wrote:

At L1, I think this is generous, and it's free:

Giant Centipede Poison
Saving Throw DC 17 Fortitude; Maximum Duration 6
rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison damage (1 round); Stage 2 1d8
poison damage and flat-footed (1 round); Stage 3 1d12 poison
damage, clumsy 1, and flat-footed (1 round)

A human can use their ancestry to start with martial weapons via general feat, use a bow, and pick from their already poisoned arrows whenever they want. At L7, you would miss out on Expert in simple weapons, but you can switch over ahead of time to prepare for Crossbow Ace and do 2d8+2 base with a Hand Xbow at L7 with Expert proficiency. Also available at that level is Giant Wasp Venom followed by L8:

Wyvern Poison
Saving Throw DC 26 Fortitude; Maximum
Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 5d6 poison damage
(1 round); Stage 2 6d6 poison damage (1 round);
Stage 3 8d6 poison damage (1 round)

Plus at this level you can have up to 36 alchemical items. 39 with a familiar plus 3 more for if you have a stat boost item for 42.

There are a lot of fun things you can do. I'm not going to try to argue this is the mathematically ultimate choice, but it sure looks fun and versatile.

poisons... are ok, but they aren't great.

They have the problem of targeting what's usually the strongest save for the majority of monsters (while using an average DC) and on top of that they are one of the very few things that do absolutely nothing on a succesful saving throw.

if "tenacious toxins" instead of being an absolute trash of a feat with practically 0 effect did something like "poisons deal half of their stage 1 damage even on a succesful savig thorw" then we would be talking.

But the main problem with Alcheist is exactly that:
Instead of their feats being "options" they very much are mathfixers just to make the class work.

They are the only class in the whole game that doesn't attack using it's primary stat.

Their mutagens ar, in most cases, more punishing thn rewarding (mainly due to +item bonus being something that a character will already get for the stuff that's important for him)

and etc.

Bomber is ok since a lot of the alchemist feats are bomber-math-fixers (extra range, less actions to strike, more damage on bombs, bigger aoe on bombs, etc)

but the rest of them are severely lagging behind.

Their "support" is at best at martial levels of support (like, a swashbucler, an investigator, or a rogue have about the same level of support to offer while still having martial levels of combat power). It has some extremely niche applications, but nothing that's a good staple option.

And let alone compared to an actual support class like a bard or something.

[Watery Soup]

jdripley wrote:

My view on the alchemist is that it's a support class disguised as a striker class.

The word "disguised" is being too generous to the alchemist's critics. It suggests that it was Paizo's fault, and people who were deceived were poor victims.

I'd use the word "misinterpreted" instead. A lot of people tried to make PF1 alchemists in PF2, they wanted TWF/ITWF and throw 5 bombs/round at touch AC, and declared the class sucked.

The alchemist is a support class, and the huge strength of the class is often dismissed because it's very difficult to put into numbers. Mistform elixirs to give a 20% miss chance against an APL+2's first attack (the ones that hit with a natural 5), sea touch elixirs to turn that aquatic ambush from Severe to Low, silvertongue mutagens for when you stand in front of a king and beg for your life ... all in one character.

Controversial statement that I may not believe myself but will say anyway for shock value: the alchemist class would be a workable class even if its bombs did 0 damage.

This is a proposition all Level 7 alchemists have to deal with, when they have to decide between prepared 2-dice bombs that use 1 action to throw, quick 2-dice bombs that dazzle but use 2 actions to throw, and perpetual 1-dice bombs that can dazzle. The choice isn't obvious, and if someone were to post math that says throwing lesser bottled lightnings for 1d6+1 damage at level 7 adds more to the team's value than moderates for 2d6+4, I wouldn't be surprised.

Yes, for the first few levels alchemists kind of suck. It's the same for all the non-martial classes, to be honest. And even archers are kind of meh.
The alchemist has the advantage that every new Common item that comes out immediately adds to the class. I wish I had ghost charges at level 2 for two big undead fights.

[Deadmanwalking]

My issue with 'Alchemist is a fine utility Class' tends to be twofold:

#1: No other utility Class needs to suffer the penalties to combat that a non-bomber Alchemist does in order to have utility, and Alchemist utility isn't mostly notably better than other utility focused Classes.

#2: A lot of that utility can be acquired for three or four Feats via Alchemist Multiclass. On top of a caster or Rogue, for example, this nets both more utility and superior combat power. Often by quite a bit.

It's not that Alchemists don't have good utility, it's that so do other Classes and the other Classes don't pay for it like Alchemists do.

[citricking]

I think the concealment is being a little overrated… you know it gives a miss chance on heal attempts too right?

[shroudb]

i mean, sure, skill mutagens are "utility" that also comes packed with "hey, you also cant fight for an hour"

that's some unique perspective on a regular adventure:
Look, lets investigate that room, here's some bonuses, and now we rest here for 1 hour because our investigator is having a permanent debuff on him for that hour.

Meanwhile, literaly Guidance, a Cantrip, gives about the same amount of bonus: +1 over your regular magical items.

If we were to compare utility split across spells and elixirs, we would have to compare stuff like Fly vs darkvision, and slight energy resist vs ... a whole spell list dedicated to providing in and out of combat utilities like divinations, hastes, better overall bonuses, better overall debuffs, much better skill replacements, and etc

So, how can he be a "utility" class, when every single spellcaster brings better utility than them?

Or is the "theme" of non-magical supposed to be inherently "bad" in power level?

That cant be the case though, not when Wit Swashbuckler can give up to +4 to literally every single skillcheck an ally can attempt, without any penalties, as many times a day as he wants, with just 1 action.

[Plane]

Right, the L10 mini-capstone Potent Poisoner feat sounds great on paper. Taking Wyvern Poison as an example, it raises the natural DC26 to DC29. That seems great. However, now that you're L10, you can make Shadow Essence which is already DC29 or Wolfsbane DC30, and despite claiming to make your poisons more "potent," it doesn't do a thing.

I get that argument and all the others I don't intend to get into like attack stat, but I still think poison is cool. It has damage. It has special effects that match wizard power. If you really wanted to go all in on it, you could produce enough to fire it at every single monster you encounter.

Poison won't work on every enemy, but there are some who will really suffer from it like spellcasters. Poison doesn't do anything against a successful save, but against a critical failure, you're practically guaranteeing multiple rounds of extra damage and extra effects.

[shroudb]

Plane wrote:

Right, the L10 mini-capstone Potent Poisoner feat sounds great on paper. Taking Wyvern Poison as an example, it raises the natural DC26 to DC29. That seems great. However, now that you're L10, you can make Shadow Essence which is already DC29 or Wolfsbane DC30, and despite claiming to make your poisons more "potent," it doesn't do a thing.

I get that argument and all the others I don't intend to get into like attack stat, but I still think poison is cool. It has damage. It has special effects that match wizard power. If you really wanted to go all in on it, you could produce enough to fire it at every single monster you encounter.

Poison won't work on every enemy, but there are some who will really suffer from it like spellcasters. Poison doesn't do anything against a successful save, but against a critical failure, you're practically guaranteeing multiple rounds of extra damage and extra effects.

The problem being, obviously, that there will be a lot more successes than critical failures.

I mean, if we're banking on the enemy rolling a 1 for it to be a great option, then, by default, that isn't great to begin with.

Poisons are good as a padding option, but that little bit of extra group damage doesnt amount more than say, Insipre courage (and that's assuming you spend enough poisons to have the whole group poisoned up every single fight)

[Staffan Johansson]

Plane wrote:

Right, the L10 mini-capstone Potent Poisoner feat sounds great on paper. Taking Wyvern Poison as an example, it raises the natural DC26 to DC29. That seems great. However, now that you're L10, you can make Shadow Essence which is already DC29 or Wolfsbane DC30, and despite claiming to make your poisons more "potent," it doesn't do a thing.

The advantages of Potent Poisoner are a bit subtle. Yes, at level 10 it doesn't do much. But the next Injury poison comes online at level 13, so the thing is that it keeps Shadow Essence relevant until then. It also means you in theory can use poisons with desirable side effects instead of just the one high-level poison you have, though I'm not sure how much of an issue that is.

[shroudb]

let's not forget that for some ridiculous reason it costs 2 feats to get Potent poisoner, one of which does like nothing (there's like 2-3 alchemical items exluding poisons with static DCs...)

For starters, the very concept that you dont inherently use Class DC for your Infused Alchemical items, which are your Class Abilities, is flawed imo.

The whole point that "Class DC" even exists in the game is so that abilities you earn at low level don't become obsolete when you level up.

The same reason why fireball levl 3 has the exact same DC as fireball level 5.

And the only class in game atm that this doesn't apply, without getting extra feats to do so, is the Alchemist.

[Staffan Johansson]

shroudb wrote:

let's not forget that for some ridiculous reason it costs 2 feats to get Potent poisoner, one of which does like nothing (there's like 2-3 alchemical items exluding poisons with static DCs...)

For starters, the very concept that you dont inherently use Class DC for your Infused Alchemical items, which are your Class Abilities, is flawed imo.

The whole point that "Class DC" even exists in the game is so that abilities you earn at low level don't become obsolete when you level up.

The same reason why fireball levl 3 has the exact same DC as fireball level 5.

And the only class in game atm that this doesn't apply, without getting extra feats to do so, is the Alchemist.

This is something I agree with. There's something to say for not having to keep track of "the giant wasp poison I gained as treasure" separately from "the giant wasp potion I whipped up this morning", but I don't think it's worth hitting alchemists with a feat tax over. And this is one of those things that make people see the alchemist as being based around PF1 design sensibilities, where the baseline for an ability is set lower than the useful level, so you have to use feats (or discoveries in PF1) in order to get to the useful level. The main example I can think of from the PF1 alchemist was Infusions (IIRC), which was needed to make your spells/elixirs work on other people than yourself.

The other main thing I see as a problem with the alchemist design (other than some dubious math) is off-loading action economy onto your party members. The main point of a support character is that they use their actions to make other characters' actions worth more. Compare the following two situations:

Fighter drops his sword as a free action, draws an elixir of life he received earlier from the alchemist, drinks the elixir, and picks his sword back up again. Then the alchemist draws and throws a bomb and then attacks with a bow.

Fighter attacks twice and raises his shield. Then the cleric casts a two-action Heal on the fighter, and attacks once with a bow.

Which of these two will likely provide the best use of actions? Almost certainly the latter, unless the monster they're fighting has a heavy-duty vulnerability to the energy used by the bomb. In the second example, the fighter got to do what he does best: hit things and defend himself. In the first, the fighter needed to spend a whole round to get healing that's likely less than the cleric would have provided.

The APG provides a bit of a fix for this with the feat that lets you make healing bombs, but that's another feat tax.

[Decimus Drake]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

The other main thing I see as a problem with the alchemist design (other than some dubious math) is off-loading action economy onto your party members. The main point of a support character is that they use their actions to make other characters' actions worth more. Compare the following two situations:

Fighter drops his sword as a free action, draws an elixir of life he received earlier from the alchemist, drinks the elixir, and picks his sword back up again. Then the alchemist draws and throws a bomb and then attacks with a bow.

Fighter attacks twice and raises his shield. Then the cleric casts a two-action...

You see the "offloading" of support as a problem, I see it as a positive. It's a different way of supporting the party and that's ok.

[shroudb]

Decimus Drake wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

The other main thing I see as a problem with the alchemist design (other than some dubious math) is off-loading action economy onto your party members. The main point of a support character is that they use their actions to make other characters' actions worth more. Compare the following two situations:

Fighter drops his sword as a free action, draws an elixir of life he received earlier from the alchemist, drinks the elixir, and picks his sword back up again. Then the alchemist draws and throws a bomb and then attacks with a bow.

Fighter attacks twice and raises his shield. Then the cleric casts a two-action...

You see the "offloading" of support as a problem, I see it as a positive. It's a different way of supporting the party and that's ok.

it would have been ok if there was an actual upside to wasting your party's actions.

I have trouble finding one.

By default, you are far worse than any martial in attacking, and you elixirs are worse than spells.

So, your actions are worth actually less than the actions of your martials and your spellcasters.

Plus, and that's a big one, not everyone can actually have a free hand on demand to draw your elixirs. In those occasions, you are basically wasting 3 actions to give one of them to your ally.

As for it being "different" and not worse, sometimes, different IS worse. Like, Striking as a Wizard is "different" than striking as a Fighter.

[Staffan Johansson]

Decimus Drake wrote:

You see the "offloading" of support as a problem, I see it as a positive. It's a different way of supporting the party and that's ok.

The point is that in one example, the fighter makes one great attack, one OK attack, and gets a defensive boost. The cleric then heals the fighter for a significant amount and makes a mediocre attack. In the other, the fighter spends his whole turn healing himself for a middling amount (less than half the amount the cleric could do) and doesn't even get a defensive boost (other than a +1 save bonus vs disease and poison compared to a level-appropriate Resilient armor rune), and the alchemist then makes one good attack and one really bad one (or more likely, sets up for another attack next round). One option is just so much better than the other.

Part of this might be the immense buff the heal spell was given after the playtest – in the playtest, heal didn't do any bonus healing when cast with two actions, but that lead to undesirable behavior. Elixirs of life got a slight boost hp-wise, but nowhere near the same (and higher-level elixirs used to have the ability to neutralize poisons and diseases, which they don't anymore).

[Plane]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

...One option is just so much better than the other...

Except what if you don't want to play the fighter's healer? This thread is open for discussion, but it wasn't opened to find the ultimate support build. That's been done.

Cleric's heal better. Bard's buff better. Can either one of them unleash any damage type on demand? Casters can prepare buffs. Alchemists don't have to prepare. It's more efficient if they do, but they're not locked in to anything. What I've found intriguing about the class is the ability to do anything in the moment while also unleashing some nasty poisons, something I've always wanted to do. Can a cleric or a bard do any of these on demand:

Magic Damage: acid (persistent), fire (persistent), frost (-speed), lightning (flat-footed), sonic (deafness) | dazzled, clumsy, enfeebled
Poison: Poison damage / negative damage plus: clumsy, enfeebled, stupefied, slowed, sleep, paralyzed, confused, sickened, drained, fatigued, -speed, unconscious, cure lycanthropy
Special Effects: tanglefoot -speed, smoke (concealed)
Buffs: darkvision, any skill, unarmed prowess, speed, etc. etc. etc.

On demand. Comparing alchemists to fighters, to clerics, to bards, and on and on misses the point. The math has problems, no doubt, but there is some fun stuff here if you're trying to play something different from the above.

Oh yeah, and they can also: Heal, grant bonuses against poison, against disease, against fear, and on and on.

[jdripley]

As far as Alchemist healing vs Cleric healing (and I'll put "any Heal healer" in there with Cleric, Clerics get more Heals but in a given moment Heal is Heal. And you know what, I'll throw Soothe in there too, why not):

There are three "legs" to the chair that is healing in PF2:

1) Skill-based Healing
2) Item-based Healing
3) Spell-based Healing

Each has their best-case use.

1) Skill-based healing is free and unlimited, but often time-locked, and unless you're using Assurance, you could fail the check and fail to heal (or worse). This is best for when you have plenty of time.

2) Item-based healing isn't free (though Alchemist comes pretty darned near to free), is always limited by quantity of available potions or elixers, and typically is not as potent as the other two sources - but so long as you have items, you can go bananas and take as many as you need. This is best for when you have a brief lull in battle or when you have only a short amount of time.

3) Spell-based healing is often very limited in availability, though wands and Divine Font can up this number somewhat. Still.. very few. Typically very high amount healed. This is best used during combat to make the difference between a fighting fighter and a dying fighter.

You can't take an Alchemist and play it like a cleric. You need to play it like an Alchemist. You're going to use a Mistform Elixer to make it less likely that you'll need a huge Heal in the first place. If you expect to simply pass out Elixers of Life like a pez dispenser and call yourself a budget cleric, your party's gonna fold, and fold hard. You need to leverage the strengths of the class.

[shroudb]

people should stop thinking mistform somehow makes a class.

i mean, blur, a level 2 spell, is basically equal to a level 6 mistform , and it's not even one of the top level 2 spells.

Level 4 mistform is hilariously bad, requiring 1 round to setup for 2 rounds of benefit.

At best, it's a stopgap.

Out of combat healing is best done with skills. If "alchemist healer" is supposed to be the "downtime healer", then anyone with some skills and skill feats does a much better job at it.

(unless you think Paizo designed a whole Field with the intent of covering the niche "you have 2 minutes to rest but not 10")

Hell, let alone casters, Investigators are FAR better healers than alchemists at this point.

As for being a toolbox, if you keep the majority of your ingredients open for quick alchemy, then that leaves you with extremely few resources to do anything else. I few of them? sure. But not nearly enough to compare with something like a spontaneous caster.

So yeah, in a theoretical campaign where you only do 1-2 battles per day and you are like level 10+, you can sustain only on Quick Alchemy, you have enough. But in the exact same campaign, a Caster who goes through his whole spellist in just 1-2 battles will vastly outperform you.

An alchemists isnt an "aoe damage dealer, a healer, a buffer, and a debuffer" anymore than a caster is using aoe haste, chain lightning, unlimited heals, and a few incapacitation spells each combat .

Edit:
That said, it's not completely unsavagable. Removing the math fixers and giving them as base abilities, and then giving actual PF2 Feats instead.

giving at level 1 chirurgeon the ability of "Your Elixirs of Life with the Infused trait also reset the Battle medicine cooldown on the target" would be enough for the healing aspect

giving for the mutagenist +1 on an item bonus of his choice for the mutagens he crafts at level 1, and at something like level 7 reducing one of the penalties by 1, would also fix him (not just for him though, if we want him to be utility, he should reliably be able to give a +2 above normal item bonuses of the level to something if we account that he also gives penalties to other stuff simultaneously)

[Plane]

I'm going to misquote you to make a point.

shroudb wrote:

Alchemist isn't a good class, because clerics heal better.

You win?

[Taja the Barbarian]

Plane, I suggest you actually play the class before declaring it 'great'.

I've never played the class myself, seen it in play, or otherwise developed a personal opinion on it, but it generally isn't a good sign when its strongest forum advocates haven't played it either.

[Martialmasters]

i generally dislike the class, but i can't tell if its execution of concept, mechanics, or both.

[Watery Soup]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

it generally isn't a good sign when its strongest forum advocates haven't played it either.

Or the people who have played it are actually realistic about the class, rather than pretending it's the best class in the world..

I doubt you will find a fan of the alchemist willing to argue it's the best class. I won't, for sure. It's a medium strength support/debuffer that could use a decent, informed discussion where its fans can really work out some tough questions.

The main problem, for the most part, is the critics who have a poor grasp of how the class works, and pretty much hold the strategic discussion to the level of "does a PF1 or PF2 alchemist get more bombs?"

Pretty much every thread in the first six months last year revolved around the assumption that the alchemist was throwing three bombs/round and how pitiful its DPR was and how it ran out of bombs, without realizing how linked those criticisms were.

[Deadmanwalking]

Most of the threads I've seen criticizing the Alchemist acknowledge that Bombers do okay (Toxicologists aren't terrible, either)...but complain that Mutagenists and Chirugeons who don't want to use bombs are completely screwed.

[Watery Soup]

Here's some examples of heresies that I may or may not believe, but put forth to challenge the groupthink on alchemist:

Alchemist Heresy #1

Don't go bomber even if you want to throw bombs. It will suck for Levels 1-2 when 1 splash actually hurts your allies, but right after Level 5 you'll never be using Advanced Alchemy any more so literally none of the bomber stuff matters except splash. Don't take Calculated Splash at Level 4.

Alchemist Heresy #2

Go tank. That's right, get Shield Block and the best shield for your level. Now go and take a few hits while definitely not dishing out as well as you take it. Unless they have AoO, there's no reason not to throw bombs from melee range.

Alchemist Heresy #3

Heresy #2 is full of crap. Run and hide, *******, run and hide. Hand out all your goodies so people can self-buff, and then go buy a hundred thousand dollar sports car in Newport Beach. Or quiver behind a rock and take little pot shots with a hand crossbow or something.

Alchemist Heresy #4

Don't make any bombs with Advanced Alchemy except bottled lightning. Your goal is just to make one enemy flat-footed, preferably one that your rogue is attacking, or the one you want your martials to crit. Even if the monster is immune to electricity, throw the bottled lightning.

Which ones do I believe?:

4 > 2 > 1 > 3

[graystone]

Martialmasters wrote:

i generally dislike the class, but i can't tell if its execution of concept, mechanics, or both.

IMO, both. [for me at least]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Most of the threads I've seen criticizing the Alchemist acknowledge that Bombers do okay (Toxicologists aren't terrible, either)...but complain that Mutagenists and Chirugeons who don't want to use bombs are completely screwed.

Pretty much this but bomber is JUST ok IMO. Perpetuals suck for non-bombers: Who needs multiple 6+ hr elixirs? Multiple underpowered mutagens with more negatives than penalties than bonuses that can stick around for up to an hr? Poisons that are lower level DC when even your on level ones have a hard time? The only saving grace IMO is that there are poison bombs which can make it similar to a bomber if you ignore regular poisons.

I've tried every way to get an alchemist to work for me, but IMO it's just a MUCH. MUCH better multiclass than an actual class to play. Free Elixirs per day great! the rest of the class... Not so much.

[shroudb]

Plane wrote:

I'm going to misquote you to make a point.

shroudb wrote:

Alchemist isn't a good class, because clerics heal better.

You win?

but that's not what i'm saying at all.

The "mis" in your misquote is truly appropriate.

I'd be fine with the (much) lower healing if they had a (much) greater support to offer.

Forensic Investigators, as an example, don't match up to a healer Cleric either, but you dont see people saying that they are bad as a support healer. That's because the rest of the investigator kit makes up for it.

But in a chirurgeon, or a mutagenist, there's nothing that they can offer the party. Elixirs of life are weak, mutagens are almost terrible as "support", and they dont have the oumph of a bomber's damage since the vast majority of damage is locked behind math-fixing feats for the bomber.

What your quote should say is more like:

Quote:

(mutagenist/chirurgeon)Alchemist isn't a good class, because clerics, bards, witches, investigators, and some sorcerers are all better simultaneously at support and healing than them.

[shroudb]

Watery Soup wrote:

Here's some examples of heresies that I may or may not believe, but put forth to challenge the groupthink on alchemist:

Alchemist Heresy #1

Don't go bomber even if you want to throw bombs. It will suck for Levels 1-2 when 1 splash actually hurts your allies, but right after Level 5 you'll never be using Advanced Alchemy any more so literally none of the bomber stuff matters except splash. Don't take Calculated Splash at Level 4.

Alchemist Heresy #2

Go tank. That's right, get Shield Block and the best shield for your level. Now go and take a few hits while definitely not dishing out as well as you take it. Unless they have AoO, there's no reason not to throw bombs from melee range.

Alchemist Heresy #3

Heresy #2 is full of crap. Run and hide, *******, run and hide. Hand out all your goodies so people can self-buff, and then go buy a hundred thousand dollar sports car in Newport Beach. Or quiver behind a rock and take little pot shots with a hand crossbow or something.

Alchemist Heresy #4

Don't make any bombs with Advanced Alchemy except bottled lightning. Your goal is just to make one enemy flat-footed, preferably one that your rogue is attacking, or the one you want your martials to crit. Even if the monster is immune to electricity, throw the bottled lightning.

** spoiler omitted **

I've pesonally played 3 different alchemists of various levels and various lengths of campaigns.

Alchemist and Inquisitors were the whole hometable's favorite classes back from PF1, Alchemist was actually was brought the group from 3.5 and WoD to PF1. So even when i'm GMing (which is most of the time), there's a good chance (like 70%+) that there is an alchemist in my table.

I have 2 pages of houserules, 1 of them covers the entirety of Core, all other classes, and some spells, the other page is the Alchemist changes alone.

When you see a chirurgeon, for a whole 2 levels, not preppering (or using Quick) a single elixir of life (levels 3 and 4) then you know that there's something wrong with this path (after having turned level 3, in the first encounter of the level he had to use all 8 of them (which were 4/7 of his ingredients) just to patch up 2 out of the 5 characters, let alone in-combat where using 2-3 actions for a 1d6 heal at level 3 had just thrown the table in the ground laughing)

When base mutagenist's question "does anyone wants to be using any particular mutagen for me to have prepared guys?" turned into the daily joke of the table before each session, then there's something wrong with this path as well.

For "tank" mutagenist, Drakeheart is indeed good. It's still bad as a support option because it only is supporting "character with exactly 14 Dex" which is rare (keeping with the theme of extremely niche support abilities) and i was indeed tanky. I spent my time in the front line, running from place to place trying to grab attention forcibly, and sometimes forcing inefficient elixirs of life to the other players. I did use maneuvers since at least i had a good proficiency for them, unlike my attacks, but i had 0 feat support for those.

Caveats being, "mutagenist" doesnt really offer anything of value for this character until like level 13 (where it gets a few temp hps to go along the AC boost)

And that the same exact concept could have been done with a Drakeheart-using Alchemical Investigator, and he would be better since the rest of my elixirs < absolutely amazing skill support + much better martial capabilities.

[Quintessentially Me]

As a mutagenist, given that one of the complaints about handing out my mutagens to teammates is that they are stuck with the penalties for the entire duration, it would be nice if Revivifying Mutagen could also be used on others. This would allow you to have everyone take your Serene Mutagen while searching for traps and then at least make the attempt to cancel said mutagens when combat comes. Maybe the healing only occurs to you.

As for comparing the limited number of spell casts to the potentially higher number of items an alchemist can provide in a day... the limit only matters if you are likely to approach it in an adventuring day. I suspect that is a fairly niche event.

[kaid]

citricking wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Non-bomber alchemists are kind of screwed in a lot of ways, too. I agree that bombers are fine past the very early levels, but non-bombers run into some serious issues in a very non-fun way.

I used to think that, but with valet+independent familiars giving a free item draw I think churigens level 5+ are very effective too. But all alchemists should probably use bombs at least sometimes even if they aren't bombers.

Giving alchemists bows at least would help them a little too.

The APG has a lot of stuff that helps fix holes in the alchemist class. One of the big ones for churigens is the ability for a feat to take a perpetual from one of the other disciplines. This at least gives you something you can use can use to add some bombing/poisoning options on the fly without wasting reagents.

Some of the new elixers are really nice too such as the one that basically gives you medium armor which is a pretty handy mutagen to have even if you are not a mutagenist.

[kaid]

I think aside from bomber poisoner is probably in the best spot currently. Since there are poison bombs they have a full range of attack options from coating theirs or team mates weapons to directly throwing bombs that all use their skill focus.

Their ability to prep their martials with extra damage on their initial attacks both maximizes their support feel as well as the chance to effect enemies. So they feel like good group assisters while adding solid damage output. Their perpetuals give them good options and given all poisons use their class DC if it is better this gives them free ability if they have a couple minutes to poison up stuff for everybody in the group. The lesser damage of the lower level poisons is pretty quickly offset by the amount of it you can almost guarantee gets applied.

[RPGnoremac]

I only have limited 2e experience but our Alchemist if level 5 in EC and he has only thrown bombs and healing elixirs and he doesn't seem to dislike it even though he ignores almost all the supportive elements. Now he can actually heal since he is level 5 though.

I kind of dismissed the alchemist for all the hate but they get a lot of reagents to mess around with compared to my Bard at level 5. Their damage honestly doesn't seem that bad and being able to give allies flatfooted is nice.

I haven't got around to playing one and not sure if I ever will since I pretty much want to play every class. Even Fighter>Eldritch Archer sounds fun.

I haven't really been paying attention to the damage he has been putting out but for AOE I feel he puts out quite decent damage.

[Watery Soup]

shroudb wrote:

Alchemist and Inquisitors were the whole hometable's favorite classes back from PF1

The class that could attack ranged touch PLUS had a 3/4 compliment of spell-like extracts was basically a favorite at everyone's table.

And in part, that's exactly why the PF2 alchemist seems to suck in comparison - because it actually does. Against the backdrop of having a character who could solo whole encounters and made it nearly impossible to write high-level scenarios for, the PF2 alchemist suuuuuucks.

shroudb wrote:

When you see a chirurgeon, for a whole 2 levels, not preppering (or using Quick) a single elixir of life (levels 3 and 4) then you know that there's something wrong with this path ... When base mutagenist's question "does anyone wants to be using any particular mutagen for me to have prepared guys?" turned into the daily joke of the table before each session, then there's something wrong with this path as well.

Or, it could simply be that people haven't discovered a good way to play them. The assumption is that chirugeon is going to make elixirs of life, so it feels weird when they don't. The assumption is that the mutagenist is going to make mutagens, so it feels weird when they don't. The whole concept of being a STR-based mutagenist who drinks a mutagen and then goes into melee combat is ported over from PF1.

Likewise, it seems inconceivable at first that a bomber wouldn't take Quick Bomber and spend an extra turn every round drawing a bomb ... and yet ... I'm pretty sure that Quick Bomber isn't necessary past a certain level, and if I were to build another bomber, would even consider not taking it at 1st to free up a feat.

I don't know if chirugeon and mutagenist will ever be "good." But I can say with confidence that they can be better than they're currently viewed (which is very poorly), because I have seen so little effort and such little creativity when they're played. It's not unlike the first round of bombers I saw last year, that primarily made alchemist's fire and threw 2-3 bombs/round.

[shroudb]

Watery Soup wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Alchemist and Inquisitors were the whole hometable's favorite classes back from PF1

The class that could attack ranged touch PLUS had a 3/4 compliment of spell-like extracts was basically a favorite at everyone's table.

And in part, that's exactly why the PF2 alchemist seems to suck in comparison - because it actually does. Against the backdrop of having a character who could solo whole encounters and made it nearly impossible to write high-level scenarios for, the PF2 alchemist suuuuuucks.

shroudb wrote:

When you see a chirurgeon, for a whole 2 levels, not preppering (or using Quick) a single elixir of life (levels 3 and 4) then you know that there's something wrong with this path ... When base mutagenist's question "does anyone wants to be using any particular mutagen for me to have prepared guys?" turned into the daily joke of the table before each session, then there's something wrong with this path as well.

Or, it could simply be that people haven't discovered a good way to play them. The assumption is that chirugeon is going to make elixirs of life, so it feels weird when they don't. The assumption is that the mutagenist is going to make mutagens, so it feels weird when they don't. The whole concept of being a STR-based mutagenist who drinks a mutagen and then goes into melee combat is ported over from PF1.

Likewise, it seems inconceivable at first that a bomber wouldn't take Quick Bomber and spend an extra turn every round drawing a bomb ... and yet ... I'm pretty sure that Quick Bomber isn't necessary past a certain level, and if I were to build another bomber, would even consider not taking it at 1st to free up a feat.

I don't know if chirugeon and mutagenist will ever be "good." But I can say with confidence that they can be better than they're currently viewed (which is very poorly), because I have seen so little effort and such little creativity when they're played. It's not unlike the first round of bombers I saw last year, that...

If you think it was the "power level" taht drew us in PF1 alchemist, then you have no clue. For starters, you have 0 knowledge about us, secondary, there were a whole lot more powerful things than alchemist.

As for chirurgeon if after 2 years people havent figured out how to "play" chirurgeon, then that's clearly the people's fault, not that the feautures are a jumbled mess of features that dont actually work together until you are at least level 13+

Seriously, it's getting tiring having such comments from people who obviously have 0 practical experience trying to play said class.

Or, if you may, tell me the "correct" way of playing a chirurgeon at those early levels. I'm here waiting to see what they do that makes them a valuable companion in a party above any other character build for support.

Keep in mind that chirurgeons "bonus" IS making more elixirs of life. Mutagenist bonus IS making more mutagens.

So yes, the clear intent of their design is obviously using their bonuses. Or do you think that the design of a fighter specialising in swords is to be using maces instead?

As for making Str-monsters, that has NEVER been stated once in this thread. Everyone says that they want to use mutagenist as the "utility buffer" that the skill mutagens advertise (since the bestial mutagen is indeed a very bad way to try to make him work)

Chirurgeon is a truly wonderful spec, having to raise 2 seperate skills to use 1 feature, having to use double the actions to do the same amount of healing, having what amounts to 0 other support abilities, having caster martial prowess etcetcetc

[graystone]

One thing I'd change shroudb.

shroudb wrote:

having to use double the actions to do the same a lower amount of healing

[Plane]

shroudb wrote:

Seriously, it's getting tiring having such comments from people who obviously have 0 practical experience trying to play said class.

This is a thread celebrating alchemist as a way to do some unique builds like poison the heck out of enemies. Why not take your valid comments to one of the many "Alchemists Aren't Good" threads where these points are actively discussed?

We know the problems. You don't have to rehash them or attempt to refute folks who are enjoying their build, at least not on this thread. To each their own, right?

[graystone]

Plane wrote:

This is a thread celebrating alchemist

Neither the thread title or your opening post read as a 'please post undying praise for the alchemist only' IMO. Additionally, no one has ownership over a thread [except staff of course]: as such, you can't really police a thread to only have content you want to see.

So in the future, is you want a specific direction for a thread, make sure you are abundantly clear to start off with [both in first post and title] and cross your fingers and hope others respect that: it's about the best chances you'll have of it working like you want.

[Watery Soup]

shroudb wrote:

So yes, the clear intent of their design is obviously using their bonuses.

I don't disagree that was the intent. I'll even agree that the design is poor.

The remaining question is whether something can be made of the class, or whether it's just an intractable design flaw. Let's start with your rhetorical-but-really-shouldn't-be-rhetorical question:

shroudb wrote:

do you think that the design of a fighter specialising in swords is to be using maces instead?

Well, let's say that all the fighter swords specialization feats suck, like the alchemist's do.

Can you build a viable fighter without using any of the specialization feats? Sure, sure, it won't be as good as a fighter with the specialization feats, but would the conclusion of your analysis be "fighters suck," or even "mace-based fighters suck"?

Do you believe that, under no circumstances, can a fighter with a swords specialization be a viable mace fighter?

For a 1E example, does Zen Archer Monk suck just because it's not the best monk archer archetype?

Nobody's forcing a chirugeon to make elixirs of life. Sure, sure, it seems crazy not to when that's their "thing." And maybe a chirugeon will never be the bomber that the bomber is. But is there any viable build for chirugeon? I don't know, and I don't think you do either.

[shroudb]

Watery Soup wrote:

Can you build a viable fighter without using any of the specialization feats? Sure, sure, it won't be as good as a fighter with the specialization feats, but would the conclusion of your analysis be "fighters suck," or even "mace-based fighters suck"?

Nobody's forcing a chirugeon to make elixirs of life. Sure, sure, it seems crazy not to when that's their "thing." And maybe a chirugeon will never be the bomber that the bomber is. But is there any viable build for chirugeon? I don't know, and I don't think you do either.

Fighter doesnt need extra feats to be specialised in a weapon group. they get that from their core, exactly like alchemist has to pick to be chirurgeon, or mutagenist, or bomber, and etc

If you aren't going to be using the features granted by Chirurgeon, then yes it is terrible.

Because then there's no reason to pick it up as a field over picking up a different field.

One of their bonuses is at best a "meh" because you need to be upping 2 out of your 3 skills just to use it (and all it gives is like a +2 modifier on a skill check).

They have by far the worst perpetual out of all 4 fields.

The last remaining bonusus are all for Elixirs of Life. If you arent going to be using them, then yes, "just pick a different field"

I don't find this an acceptable answer.

And again, "unicorn builds" that after 2 years no one has found how to "use" are just an insult at this point.

Plane wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Seriously, it's getting tiring having such comments from people who obviously have 0 practical experience trying to play said class.

This is a thread celebrating alchemist as a way to do some unique builds like poison the heck out of enemies. Why not take your valid comments to one of the many "Alchemists Aren't Good" threads where these points are actively discussed?

We know the problems. You don't have to rehash them or attempt to refute folks who are enjoying their build, at least not on this thread. To each their own, right?

the OP had nothing to do with Poisons.

The OP basically read:
"I've read, but havent played the class, and it seems great (because they get 10 items at level 1!)"
To which we ansered:
"We, who have actually played the class, find that that is false because of reasons A, B and C"

I DO agree that "play what you like"

But i heavily advice that any home game with an Alchemist make liberal use of Houserules to fix the inherent problems with the Class until (and IF) Paizo ever addresses them.

[Puna'chong]

I've had a couple Alchemists in my games.

The first didn't last long, they gave up and went Ranger at level 3 because they didn't like tracking bombs and they didn't like missing and having to fall back on their crossbow so often (at lower levels; obviously they never made it to higher levels). They rarely had resources to do much if any party support, and it seemed like they were disappointed that as a "bomber" they couldn't really do bombs all day.

The second one has been using a homebrew/houserule Mutagenist and has so far been having a lot of fun. Level 4. They mostly use their daily prep to make upgraded mutagens but can still contribute throughout the day with their Inexhaustible Catalyst items. Not sure how it'll all scale but they've been about on par with the Rogues I've had in other games.

Overall, though, as a support class I didn't think the Alchemist as written has enough going for them compared to a caster. Their resources are a pain, their accuracy is bad, their class feats are littered with 1e feat taxes, and overall they just seem to be jumping through myriad hoops that other classes don't have to even consider. Seems like a missed opportunity. If it's working for some people, great, but it seems like a P1e class that quickly falls behind the more efficient and smooth P2e classes.

[shroudb]

Yeah, that's why i said as well that people should be using extensive homebrews for alchemists imo.

Paizo has done a fantastic job as far as the flavor of PF2 alchemist is concerned imo, but the actual power level of the class is quite a few steps below every other class.

So, keeping the flavor as it is (ingredients->consumables) but adjusting upwards the various math of the alchemist (some of said fixes you can simply take them from the various feat taxes that burden the class and just give them as passive bonuses) should be enough for an enjoyable experience.

[HumbleGamer]

I also re-evaluated it after a friend of mine decided to go for it in another campaign.

As well as for the 5th edition ( And I guess many other games ) we are very lucky to have excellent apps to manage our characters in a quick, easy and intuitive way.

Alchemist, as well as spellcaster, has its sheet which works perfectly on the 2e pathbuilder app. It takes 1 second to add or remove a bomb, as well as to add new formulas or expend a batch of infused reagents.

The bomber is probably the most well rounded specialization, but the other are also performant even if not soo good if compared to the bomber or other classes ( For example comparing the chirurgeon with a cleric ).

What I mostly like about the alchemist is that I feel it's unique.

[Staffan Johansson]

Watery Soup wrote:

Or, it could simply be that people haven't discovered a good way to play them. The assumption is that chirugeon is going to make elixirs of life, so it feels weird when they don't. The assumption is that the mutagenist is going to make mutagens, so it feels weird when they don't. The whole concept of being a STR-based mutagenist who drinks a mutagen and then goes into melee combat is ported over from PF1.

If you need to "discover" a good way to play a core build of a class, that class is poorly designed.

If I want to play a fighter who specializes in archery, that's pretty easy. Pump Dexterity, choose Bow as my favored weapon group, and take the feats supporting archery. I could also do pretty well by spreading my feats out a little to grab some melee stuff as well that works well with finesse weapons, so there's room to maneuver to find something that works well with the role I play in the group and how I envision my character.

If I can't do that with a chirurgeon or mutagenist alchemist, the class is not well designed. Mr. Hyde should be easy to make. So should a doctor build.

[Watery Soup]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

If you need to "discover" a good way to play a core build of a class, that class is poorly designed.

So, what do you want to do about it? Cry to Paizo until they fix it? Homebrew all the parts you don't like? Refuse to play it altogether?

Those are all answers to some degree, but you can't spend all your time lobbying Paizo to implement your homebrews, refusing to play a "broken" class, and then ...

shroudb wrote:

"unicorn builds" that after 2 years no one has found how to "use" are just an insult at this point

... complain that nobody has come up with a viable build.

Let's start with something that is way more obvious when said than believed: half of the classes are going to be below average. As a matter of fact, the constant attempts to make every class above average is what led to the PF1 power creep and, over time, unworkable self-consistency conflicts for the designers. It's a system-killer.

So, when you talk about a chirugeon alchemist, or a mace-based fighter, the question isn't whether there's a 4/5 or 5/5 build, it's whether there's a 2/5 build or a 3/5 build. And that's not for everyone, but that's fine.

If you're looking for an obvious build with clearly designed feats, I absolutely agree you should stay away from an alchemist (even a bomber). But this thread isn't about an obvious build - I'm not sure there's an obvious build for even bomber alchemist if you're unwilling to play one of the below average characters and put in the work to see if it can be better. I'd actually rank bomber alchemist as a below average class even with everything that people know now. There's probably going to be a considerable amount of retraining in an alchemist's future, and some of it may be designed retraining - as an entirely hypothetical example, taking Quick Bomber at Level 1 with the expectation that it gets retrained later (and not taking Far Lobber at Level 1 so that Quick Bomber can be retrained to Far Lobber).

[shroudb]

Watery Soup wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

If you need to "discover" a good way to play a core build of a class, that class is poorly designed.

So, what do you want to do about it? Cry to Paizo until they fix it? Homebrew all the parts you don't like? Refuse to play it altogether?

Those are all answers to some degree, but you can't spend all your time lobbying Paizo to implement your homebrews, refusing to play a "broken" class, and then ...

shroudb wrote:

"unicorn builds" that after 2 years no one has found how to "use" are just an insult at this point

... complain that nobody has come up with a viable build.

Let's start with something that is way more obvious when said than believed: half of the classes are going to be below average. As a matter of fact, the constant attempts to make every class above average is what led to the PF1 power creep and, over time, unworkable self-consistency conflicts for the designers. It's a system-killer.

So, when you talk about a chirugeon alchemist, or a mace-based fighter, the question isn't whether there's a 4/5 or 5/5 build, it's whether there's a 2/5 build or a 3/5 build. And that's not for everyone, but that's fine.

If you're looking for an obvious build with clearly designed feats, I absolutely agree you should stay away from an alchemist (even a bomber). But this thread isn't about an obvious build - I'm not sure there's an obvious build for even bomber alchemist if you're unwilling to play one of the below average characters and put in the work to see if it can be better. I'd actually rank bomber alchemist as a below average class even with everything that people know now. There's probably going to be a considerable amount of retraining in an alchemist's future, and some of it may be designed retraining - as an entirely hypothetical example, taking Quick Bomber at Level 1 with the expectation that it gets retrained later (and not taking Far Lobber at Level 1 so that Quick Bomber can be retrained to Far Lobber).

Those are a lot of words to say:

"if the class is bad what to do?"

You can have fun roleplaying a Str+Dex 8 Fighter.

That's the beauty of rpgs, but that doesnt mean that a Str+Dex 8 Fighter is, objectively, "a good character".

You most certainly CAN have fun with a suboptimal character. If anything, most of my "fun" builds are never optimised. But that doesnt mean that even thaose builds shouldnt have their shining point where the player gets to feel awesome.

That's the problem with current mutagenist and chirurgeon, they do absolutely nothing "spectacular". For everything they can do, there are other classes that do it much better.

As for "what to do" for a bad designed class:

A lot of us have already posted various houserules for others to look at.
You can warn newer players that the class is below average comapred to literaly any other class, because that might in fact impact their fun.
You can urge other GMs to houserule their games, as they see fit, to make the class enjoyable to more people.
And obviously, you can nudge Paizo to fix as much stuff as they can about the class.

What you SHOULDN'T do, is alluding that the entirety of playerbase is too stupid to have found "a unicorn build that makes everything perfectly fine".

[Plane]

shroudb wrote:

the OP had nothing to do with Poisons.

The OP basically read:
"I've read, but havent played the class, and it seems great (because they get 10 items at level 1!)"
To which we ansered:
"We, who have actually played the class, find that that is false because of reasons A, B and C"

Here's the beginning of the original post:

Plane wrote:

This class looks like a lot of fun. Make 10 alchemical items every day for free at L1? Make as many as 27 at L5? There is versatility to do some interesting builds here like a poisoner and trap-layer. There are some wicked poisons at low levels, and you can put as many as you like on your ammunition for firing at will.

It feels to me like you hijacked the thread to bash the alchemist class. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are being dishonest about how you are engaging here.

[graystone]

Plane wrote:

shroudb wrote:

the OP had nothing to do with Poisons.

The OP basically read:
"I've read, but havent played the class, and it seems great (because they get 10 items at level 1!)"
To which we ansered:
"We, who have actually played the class, find that that is false because of reasons A, B and C"

Here's the beginning of the original post:

Plane wrote:

This class looks like a lot of fun. Make 10 alchemical items every day for free at L1? Make as many as 27 at L5? There is versatility to do some interesting builds here like a poisoner and trap-layer. There are some wicked poisons at low levels, and you can put as many as you like on your ammunition for firing at will.

It feels to me like you hijacked the thread to bash the alchemist class. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are being dishonest about how you are engaging here.

He's engaging: nothing about that has to be positive. You said 'hey, this looks fun' and someone else saying 'I've found it to not be fun because...' is text book engaging. Again, nothing in your first post says 'please, only posts that are 100% positive about alchemists and only ones the reinforce my current views on the class' and even f it did, it's an open thread that that isn't policeable by 'normal' posters.