| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's what happened.
I was asked to join a D&D group by some old friends. After a brief discussion, I managed to shift the main topic of conversation from "you could GM for us again in 5e" to "damn yeah ok this is really cool, I guess I could GM Pathfinder2 with it". It's all about flavour choices.
This put me in the position of making a new character, and that implied choices. No biggie, I can whip one up.
Then for the next three weeks the starting game got delayed. This gave me the chance to revise my character, rethink my choices, reconsider my options... And I put way too much thought into this. What started from "how about a list of options" ended up as a guide.
So, I might as well format it and share it. This is PubAlchem, a guide to alchemical items and options that rates and reviews each one to help you sort through your options.
Have a read, and enjoy.
Last update on 17/12/21 (Troubles in Otari adventure, Redpitch Alchemy blogpost).
Time travel!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last update on 17/12/21 (Troubles in Otari adventure, Redpitch Alchemy blogpost).Time travel!
Being in Australia, I am indeed writing from the future.
Are you a chemist, or is PubChem more mainstream than I think it is?
I use PubChem all the time and was very pleased to see the reference.
As for the Guide, it looks excellent. Great job and thanks!
Are you a chemist, or is PubChem more mainstream than I think it is?
I use PubChem all the time and was very pleased to see the reference.
As for the Guide, it looks excellent. Great job and thanks!
I am very pleased it got noticed :D but it's not that mainstream, unfortunately.
Mutagenist is much worse than bomber
As a build? Probably.
As a research field? No.You can build a bomber with a different field and it'll be very close, because the abilities are meh. The build comes from the feats. What I am rating there is the abilities, and the way they interact with item choices, and in that point the bomber field is nothing to be excited about. It's basically a few extra reagents for bombs (which, really, just depend on shifting numbers around, unless you're building only bombs) and a bonus feat.
Mutagenist grants unique abilities that no other research field grants, and which have a definite impact on your item choice, selection, and usage.
Some very good observation however, might incorporate a few.
On the whole I like the guide, but there's a couple things I differ on:
Imo, you're kinda underselling how good being able to reduce the splash to 1 target. Not hitting your allies with chip damage when bombing a boss is pretty solid, and gives your bombs a bit more versatility. Additionally, while bombs aren't infinite (before level 7 anyways), getting three bombs per reagent vs 2 helps a lot, especially since there's a lot of really nice bombs that you can't make with perpetual alchemy. I've also gotten a lot of mileage out of handing off bombs to my party investigator and swashbuckler, both of which use melee weapons and don't exactly want to invest in a permanent ranged weapons alongside their main melee weapon, but still enjoy having one or two ranged attacks stocked away as an opening volley to slap a debuff on someone before closing in.
I also think blight bomb and dread ampoule are a tad underrated here. If we are going to rate toxicology as a blue field despite being totally focused on poison, it's weird to me that the blight bomb gets it's rating lowered for damage when it's easily the highest damaging bomb unless you get really lucky with the acid flask duration, not to mention that more of the damage is front loaded. Likewise, dread ampoule's condition is at least on par with bottled lighting, and while mental is certainly a worse damage type than electric, it's at least worth a nod that it's a non lethal alchemy option.
Something I really liked about the guide though is how highly you marked mutagenist. I know a lot of folks here claim it's a bad field, but tbh, I think people really overstate how bad the drawbacks are, and undervalue just how nice the math advantage is. In my current game, I'm playing an alchemist and overall, I'm one of the most flexible skill character because of my mutagens. The drawbacks aren't even that bad if you know how to play around them, or nerf something you don't use. Currently, I pass mutagens to the witch, who loves the AC spike and initiative boost from drakeheart mutagen or the hp boost of juggernaut in combat, and can use cognitive mutagen with no drawback functionally, and the swashbuckler likes how nice the silvertongue mutagen lets him land bon mots even on bad rolls.
My 2 cents:
I like that you raise the issue that focusing on bombs can be a trap. And even if I quite agree with you I don't think you can give ** to bomber. Avoiding to splash your allies is a great ability especially compared to what the other specialties offer you at level 1 (for most of them, nothing).
As a side note, if you don't want to splash your allies, you can buy Rings of Energy Resistance (in PFS, it's very easy to protect your allies from your bombs from level 6 onwards).
But it's true that focusing on bombs is only valid from level 3 to 11. After that, bombs become so weak there's no more point in using them on non weak enemies.
I can only disagree with that: "and what exactly are you ranking up Crafting for anyways?". Crafting is the basic Alchemist skill, discouraging an Alchemist to increase his main skill is weird.
As a side note, Crafting is awesome in PFS, increasing your wealth by up to 20%.
I strongly disagree with Shroudb about the use of Perpetual Infusions. For me, it's mostly useless. The only useful ones are the Chirurgeon ones as they are always on. Perpetual Bombs are just super weak (they don't even compete with Electric Arc in terms of damage), Perpetual Poisons are useless (even if your DM is nice) and Perpetual Mutagens would be ok if you could choose more than 2 of them.
At current state of poison, Toxicologist is useless and can be replaced by one single feat: Potent Poisoner. The level 13 ability is hardly usable due to the lack of available poisons. If more poisons get released, the level 13 ability will become way better but the level 1 one will be even more useless.
As Shroudb, I find Mutagenist Field to be mostly useless before level 13 (but at level 13 it's the most solid improvement to Alchemist abilities).
Skill-based Mutagens are awesome once you are level 11. If you properly build your Alchemist, you can make a skill monkey out of it. My preference goes to Ageless Patience (very easy to use outside fights) + Mutagen. You nearly end up being equivalent to Master in all skills with that combo.
As a side note, Mutagens counter each other, so if you're scared to end up in a combat with a bad mutagen on, just drink a few Drakeheart Mutagens until you get rid of the previous mutagen. Revivifying Mutagen is another solution.
For Cognitive Mutagen, the benefit of being trained in a skill is very important. With Quick Alchemy, you can be trained in any Lore you need. If your DM follows the guidelines, he should reduce the difficulty of checks if you bring the proper lore, and with the Mutagen bonus and your high Intelligence, you can do a lot of things. It is quite DM-dependent (even if the guidelines are clear).
To conclude, I think the Alchemist is a class that can be played in a lot of different ways. Every player brings a brand new vision of it. So, maybe the best thing is not to change a word of your guide and just provide multiple guides about multiple types of Alchemists.
I have yet to see a single good application of Bestial mutagen.
Feral Mutagen + Flurry of Blows = d12 Deadly d10 weapon and d10 Deadly d10 Agile weapon, -1 to hit compared to martials, excellent action economy and 2 hands free for shield, Elixirs of Life or Mistform ones.
It's only available at level 11+, but I really think it's a very strong combo.
Crafting is awesome in PFS, increasing your wealth by up to 20%.
While that is true from a raw Wealth By Level number, I'm not sure it's true on a utilitarian level. You get a very large bonus on anything that you would have bought with gold anyway. But when Crafting, unless you're 100% sure you're going to use it, you have to multiply your gains by the probability you're going to use it.
So if you make 4 antidotes for 110 gp of raw materials plus about 50 gp of Earn Income opportunity cost, you're nominally getting 220 gp of Wealth By Level for 160 gp cost. But if you only end up using 2 of them before they become obsolete, you've spent 160 gp for 110 gp of utility.
I started by Crafting batches of 4, but recently have dropped it down to batches of 2-3, because after a few levels, I realized that I just have a lot of random items I've crafted that I didn't use and may never use.
Maybe I'll get lucky and a BBE will poison my whole party in my next adventure, so I can use all my antidotes! :D
multiple guides about multiple types of Alchemists
Another suggestion would be to limit the scope of the guide (this goes for nearly every guide out there).
I think it's pretty rare that someone's going to have played so much of one class that they have insight into all the different options. It probably gets more attention if you post "everything you need to know about the alchemist" but it's probably more accurate if you post "important lessons I've learned with Level 1-11 Bomber Alchemists in a CRB+LOCG setting".
For example, I'm pretty opinionated about the bomber, but I have nothing to contribute to the "bomber vs toxicologist" discussion because I've never played a toxicologist. I've played a mutagenist, but only in a home game, and the character was named Popeye and ate spinach for his mutagens, so ... not exactly a stress test of the class.
Crafting is awesome in PFS, increasing your wealth by up to 20%.While that is true from a raw Wealth By Level number, I'm not sure it's true on a utilitarian level. You get a very large bonus on anything that you would have bought with gold anyway. But when Crafting, unless you're 100% sure you're going to use it, you have to multiply your gains by the probability you're going to use it.
It's true there's a batch issue. But there's a use of having 4 times the same item when it's an item anyone in your party may benefit from. Either because there may be big uses sometimes (like for Darkvision Elixir) or because you may want to give one to each other party members (like Cat's Eye Elixir).
I personally craft bombs, because I often go over my daily allotment (it allows me to produce more alchemical items of other types as I don't have to produce bombs for long adventuring days).multiple guides about multiple types of AlchemistsAnother suggestion would be to limit the scope of the guide (this goes for nearly every guide out there).
I don't think it's a matter of scope. Shroudb highly considers Toxicologist, I consider Toxicologist useless. And I'm playing a Chirurgeon/Toxicologist (the focus of my character is Elixirs of Life and Poison and I hesitated between both specialty until they gave Powerful Alchemy for free).
Shroudb considers that Perpetual Bombs are the only useful items and Chirurgeon ones are the worst, I consider perpetual bombs useless and Chirurgeon perpetual items to be the only useful ones.Of course, it is visible in what we play (I play a Chirurgeon, Shroudb plays a Bomber and a Toxicologist). But our points of view are irreconcilable.
I don't know who's right or wrong, I don't even know if it's possible to consider one is and the other isn't. In my opinion, we have a very different way of handling the Alchemist, a very different focus on what we find interesting in the class and if we had to write guides about it they would be very different even if they would cover the same things.
I have yet to see a single good application of Bestial mutagen.Feral Mutagen + Flurry of Blows = d12 Deadly d10 weapon and d10 Deadly d10 Agile weapon, -1 to hit compared to martials, excellent action economy and 2 hands free for shield, Elixirs of Life or Mistform ones.
It's only available at level 11+, but I really think it's a very strong combo.yes:
a)Your math is off: it's not d12 and -1 to AC. It's d12 and -2 to AC, or d10 and -1 to AC.
My math isn't off as I haven't spoken about AC.
b)i dont believe any build that only comes online after level 11 to be a good build. I mean, alchemist level 18 is awesome for permanent ptions like haste and etc, that doesnt mean that a build focused on a level 18 feature is "as a whole" good.
You can't say that. There is one build that works for level 11+. If you start a game at level 1, I would clearly understand if you disregard it. But if you play a high level adventure or if you start at higher level, it's a perfectly valid build.
Now, you won't find many Alchemist's build working right at level 1. Actually, there's none, the Bomber one really starts at level 3 and it's the lower level one. It's a sad drawback of the Alchemist and I don't think anything can help it.c)Plus, the same exact build (alchemist/monk), at the same level, you can be using dragon stance and drakeheart for d10 and +1 to AC -1 attack comparatively.
So compare:"+1 attack d10 -1 to AC" or "d10 backswing +1 to AC". Basically you are trading -2 to AC for +1 to attacks. Going for d12 damge puts you in a -3 comparative AC which is akin to suicide for your 8hp class.
d10 Backswing against +1 to hit d12 Deadly d10 + d10 Deadly D10 Agile. I think the best one is obvious. Now, is it worth -2 to AC (Drakeheart is another action and a Mutagenist can have 2 Mutagens running anyway)? Yes, clearly, and by far. -2 to AC on a strong action economy character for a massive improvement in damage (easily equivalent to +2 to hit) is worth it. You may dislike it and prefer your Dragon solution, which is fine. But you can't dismiss this character damage output.
As for your opinion on perpetual bombs:
a) their damage is comparative to the best damage cantrip due to sticky (as an example, at level 8 with alchemist fire you are dealing 1d8+4+5 persistent +4 aoe. That is at least 13 damage on a single target on average and 18 damage if the enemy survives a second round, 17/22 if you hit a second target. Electric arc in comparison is 3d4+4, so 11 to 1 target and 22 if it hits a second target), so in a round when you dont want to waste resources you are no different than a caster that doesnt want to waste resources, and on most other rounds they are a free (resource wise) second attack that does 2 no-save debuffs simultaneously which is probably one of the strongest "secondary attacks" that you can make.
Their damage is on par with single target Electric Arc which is... nothing to brag about. The main issue is that it costs 2 actions. For one action, I'd be with you, but for 2 action, just grab Electric Arc from your Ancestry or a Dedication and you have right at level 1/2 a better thing to do with your 2 actions.
Also, they come too late. Level 7? If you are still struggling with your Reagents allotment at that stage you made something wrong (which may be playing an Alchemist in a campaign with long adventuring days which is something the Alchemist is bad at).Chirurgeon perpetual that you like are bad because if you want to be protected from poisons, just 1 reagent gives you much higher bonus vs poison for basically a whole day (12h), and that "1 less reagonet" is extremely easier recuperated back when you have good "free" combat actions that do not take your reagents exactly due to perpetual+additive bombs.
It's not one Reagent because there's a whole party to buff. Also, paying Reagents for Antidotes is expensive, I don't think anyone would do that unless there's a very strong incentive.
For me, it's a +1 to saves against Poisons and Diseases for the whole party always. It's far from incredible, that would be lying to say otherwise. But it's a bonus that's nice to take.The only reason I consider the Chirurgeon Perpetual Infusions positively is because the other Perpetual Infusions are absolutely useless in my opinion. I don't see myself paying a level 8 feat for Perpetual Bombs not to suck.
I personally craft bombs
Hopefully not too much at mid-levels in PFS (whenever you're two levels above what you're Crafting). Because PFS Earn Income Task Level is set at Character Level - 2, if you're Level 6 and want more moderate bombs, you should Earn Income (TL 4) and then use the money to buy the moderate bombs. If you're whatever faction gives the TL=CL boon, the opportunity cost from Earn Income is really high, and you should only craft your level (or higher, if you can manage).
you won't find many Alchemist's build working right at level 1
It's fine for PFS. Most of the Season 1 1-4s were pretty easy combat-wise in the 1-2 subtier.
As a matter of fact, my experience was nearly the opposite - Levels 1 and 2 were so easy that I didn't recognize a bunch of really bad flaws in my build. During the first high tier 1-4 that I played at Level 3, I realized how many mistakes I had made, and ended up spending a bunch of Downtime retraining.
I think the big thing is that at Level 1, it's hard to have enough formulas to feel like you're versatile. Ghost charges didn't exist when I was Level 1, but there were a few scenarios where AA ghost charges would have downright trivialized the encounters - but I doubt many Level 1 characters can afford to have a niche bomb like ghost charge.
1 step higher damage (d12 instead of d10) is like 3 damage more per hit.
And -3 to AC for +1 to attack ?
30% extra damage (according to Citricking's tool) for -2 AC and Reflex. Seems fine for me, but you may disagree. In my opinion, the Dragon build just doesn't do enough damage to be competitive. At least the Feral one does as much damage than a Greatsword Dragon Barbarian first strike with his Flurry of Blows. It's one fearsome action per turn.
For a 8hp class?
With the proper Familiar you have one action Elixirs of Life and Mistform Elixir (which compensate the -2 to AC).
In my opinion, this build is very playable, for me it's the most powerful Alchemist build at level 11+ (moment when the Bomber build just falls into oblivion, so it's a bit easy to state).
Think of it that way:
if there was a cantrip that was "attack roll for minor damage, frightened 1 (no save) and lfat-footed (no save)" do you think that casters would prepare and cast it? Especially if their "main attack" was just 1 action?
You have a fort save for the Flat-Footed condition. And you are speaking of a level 7 ability, I no more use cantrips offensively at level 7 with my casters. And it's 2 actions, you can't make it in one action. And you also have to take into account that Bombs start going down at level 12 so you are speaking of a 5 levels span ability that I have hard time even finding honorable. Nope, sorry, nothing I'd fight for. We will have to agree to disagree on that.
Hopefully not too much at mid-levels in PFS (whenever you're two levels above what you're Crafting). Because PFS Earn Income Task Level is set at Character Level - 2, if you're Level 6 and want more moderate bombs, you should Earn Income (TL 4) and then use the money to buy the moderate bombs.
I also made this mistake. Crafting always operate at your level. So if you craft level 3 bombs, you have an easy check and level 6/7 gains.
It's fine for PFS. Most of the Season 1 1-4s were pretty easy combat-wise in the 1-2 subtier.
It's true, but the feeling of not contributing much in combat is not one I like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think blight bomb and dread ampoule are a tad underrated here. If we are going to rate toxicology as a blue field despite being totally focused on poison, it's weird to me that the blight bomb gets it's rating lowered for damage when it's easily the highest damaging bomb unless you get really lucky with the acid flask duration, not to mention that more of the damage is front loaded. Likewise, dread ampoule's condition is at least on par with bottled lighting, and while mental is certainly a worse damage type than electric, it's at least worth a nod that it's a non lethal alchemy option.
The crux to me here isn’t whether the damages are resisted or immune - it’s that they are never weaknesses (or exceptions to resistances).
The one constant complaint I hear over and over is the ‘running out of bombs’ one, whether it’s the low level “I can’t lift them and I still don’t have enough” or the higher level “can’t ever have enough of each” version. And no, perpetual bombs don’t make up for it, enough people explained why by now (on the other hand they’re good as debilitating bombs).So, the best use of bombs isn’t (to me) dealing 3d6 +3 splash or 3d6 +8 splash, but more akin to dealing 3d6 +20 splash by sniping weaknesses. You focus on those and, if there’s no weakness to exploit, you fall back on your non-optimal damage bomb options or a backup weapon. In this, poison and mental damage have no best case scenario, only a permanent “it’s not bad” state.
Note that this type of attitude would also allow to save some reagents to exploit Alchemist’s actual exclusive strength which is long term buffs. Making a ton of bombs to spam them all the time is certainly possible, but so is playing a greatsword rogue. It does the job, but not exactly peak efficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The crux to me here isn’t whether the damages are resisted or immune - it’s that they are never weaknesses (or exceptions to resistances).
The one constant complaint I hear over and over is the ‘running out of bombs’ one, whether it’s the low level “I can’t lift them and I still don’t have enough” or the higher level “can’t ever have enough of each” version. And no, perpetual bombs don’t make up for it, enough people explained why by now (on the other hand they’re good as debilitating bombs).
Oh, I would never say perpetual bombs make up for it without debilitating bombs, the damage is far too low. That said, hucking lightning damage that also makes the target easier to hit and gives them a 20% miss chance is a fairly solid play to just be able to spam for free.
So, the best use of bombs isn’t (to me) dealing 3d6 +3 splash or 3d6 +8 splash, but more akin to dealing 3d6 +20 splash by sniping weaknesses. You focus on those and, if there’s no weakness to exploit, you fall back on your non-optimal damage bomb options or a backup weapon. In this, poison and mental damage have no best case scenario, only a permanent “it’s not bad” state.
I can see this point, but I also want to add in status conditions are really potent force multipliers. A Dread Ampoule on the big bad not only makes them more vulnerable to your team, it weakens them for a turn, and unlike demoralize, it doesn't offer immunity. After 2 turns, the blight bomb will outdamage a d12 weapon that's on level, which isn't something to sneeze at, really.
Note that this type of attitude would also allow to save some reagents to exploit Alchemist’s actual exclusive strength which is long term buffs. Making a ton of bombs to spam them all the time is certainly possible, but so is playing a greatsword rogue. It does the job, but not exactly peak efficiency.
100%, 0I would absolutely not endorse making bombs your only thing. The exclusive thing only the alchemist really has are long term buffs (and ones that stack with spells at that), and pulling out silver bullets from their formula book instantly. Even the spell substitution wizard can't whip out something from their book in encounter mode, while the alchemist can do so as a single action.
You’d be surprised how many seem to support that stance. Even here, a few posts above, there’s a “bomber can make 50% more bombs”. No, it can’t. It makes the same bombs, it just changes how reagents are spent and distributed.
You’d be surprised how many seem to support that stance. Even here, a few posts above, there’s a “bomber can make 50% more bombs”. No, it can’t. It makes the same bombs, it just changes how reagents are spent and distributed.bobmer makes 50% more bombs (per reagent) means that he more easily covers the required bombs to be able to chuck them in most rounds while having extra capacity for other stuff.
And I think what Ediwir was saying is that not being Bomber means 50% more other stuff so you can get more bombs. Overall, it's just a difference in how you allocate your reagents, it has a low impact on the final number of alchemical items you produce per day.
I do expect like 12-20 rounds of combat at early levels (like 3-4 battles of 4-5 rounds each) and up to 20-30 rounds at later levels (where fights usually last a bit longer or more of them are packed packed).
Combats last 2 (Moderate) or 3 (Severe) rounds of pounding and this value is quite stable accross levels (it's lower during the very first levels but at level 5+ it becomes stable). Luckily, as 20-30 rounds of combat with 2 alchemical items used per round means that you can't last a whole adventuring day at level 20...
I mean, it happens. APs are notorious for chaining fights. But I think if you end up in such a campaign you should just avoid to play an Alchemist. Playing a peasant with a crossbow during most of your carreer is nowhere close to fun.There are some builds floating around about throwing 2 "normal" bombs per round and etc, and i'll stricktly against wasting reagents for 2nd attacks with bobms.
You can't make such a statement without taking into consideration the broad picture. PFS, for example, has quite short adventuring days and a strict limit in the number of fights (time limit as it has to be done in 4 hours). Using 2 bombs per round is perfectly doable in PFS, especially if you forget a bit too much about the other alchemical items (as many Bombers tend to). And you also have to take into account the fights you are going through. During a tough fight, you don't think much about the expense even if it means getting some rest after it's done.
That's why perpetual are the perfect 2nd bombs of a round even for damage builds imo, they still do their adequate (persistent) damage due to sticky while being free resource wise.
I strongly disagree. You'll have way more mileage out of Electric Arc, even if you don't increase your proficiency. Single target Trained Electric Arc does 20% more damage than Sticky Perpetual Bombs with all splash feats at -5. They don't do adequate damage because they don't hit at all (you'll be at 20-30% chances to hit on average).
I much prefer debilitating bomb vs sticky bomb for perpetuals. If I wanted more damage I'd pick up electric arc, but to my knowledge, the bomber alchemist is the only class that can do damage (with a guaranteed small amount even on a fail), and flat foot someone just on a hit, and then on top of that force a save vs dazzeled, at will, for two actions. Idk if maybe it's just because I play at a table where there's always a rogue and at least one other martial, but dropping conditions like that is always super helpful. It's also why I like the bomber's ability to lower splash range; I can keep doing it every turn if I want, even when my allies are circled around the target, without also hurting my allies.
Also, I still get the advantage of the nice damage potential of poisons; I just put them on my allies' weapons while I lob status conditions at the villains
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer debilitating bomb vs sticky bomb for perpetuals. If I wanted more damage I'd pick up electric arc, but to my knowledge, the bomber alchemist is the only class that can do damage (with a guaranteed small amount even on a fail), and flat foot someone just on a hit, and then on top of that force a save vs dazzeled, at will, for two actions. Idk if maybe it's just because I play at a table where there's always a rogue and at least one other martial, but dropping conditions like that is always super helpful. It's also why I like the bomber's ability to lower splash range; I can keep doing it every turn if I want, even when my allies are circled around the target, without also hurting my allies.
Also, I still get the advantage of the nice damage potential of poisons; I just put them on my allies' weapons while I lob status conditions at the villains
There's a stronger way to do that: Bomb + Bird combo. The Bird Animal Companion Support Ability inflicts Dazzle if you damage an enemy with a Strike, which includes just dealing splash damage with your bomb. And it lasts for many rounds. And it's accessible as early as level 2 with Beastmaster Dedication.
I use that combo with my Chirurgeon and it's awful when you also consider that Animal Companions have top of the notch ACs. I've tanked a crab (those who know will understand) with my owl and the crab never dropped the owl.
Also, not sure if it's a pfs issue, since pfs adventures are specifically designed to be done very quickly (or so i hear), but normal combbts last way more than 2 rounds.
I get this number from maths. The average damage of a character per round is roughly 10% of an encounter sum of hps. You can see it on Citricking's tool. It's higher for solo bosses, lower for multiple enemies but AoEs compensate. So, you need 2 rounds of actual fight to get rid of a Moderate encounter and 3 for a Severe encounter. I speak of actual fight as you won't use much reagents when you're not attacking the enemy.
animal companions are just too feat intensive for something that your main class already have plenty of support imo, especially for a bomber build where you get the flexibility of 4-5 different debuffs at the cost of just 1 feat instead of only having access to dazzle through the bird.
Outside Dazzled, what do you use Debilitating Bomb for? And you have to hit (50% chance) and the enemy has to fail it's Fortitude save (50% chance) and it lasts one round.
Animal Companions are indubitably feat intensive but I don't think you can get an equivalent debuff before Perfect Debilitation (and even in that case, I find Animal Companion near-auto-Dazzled to be stronger).
I made a mistake in my last sentence, I should have written "Animal Companions are indubitably feat intensive but I don't think you can get an equivalent debuff before True Debilitating Bomb (and even in that case, I find Animal Companion near-auto-Dazzled to be stronger until you get Perfect Debilitation)."
Also, not sure if it's a pfs issue, since pfs adventures are specifically designed to be done very quickly (or so i hear), but normal combbts last way more than 2 rounds.I get this number from maths. The average damage of a character per round is roughly 10% of an encounter sum of hps. You can see it on Citricking's tool. It's higher for solo bosses, lower for multiple enemies but AoEs compensate. So, you need 2 rounds of actual fight to get rid of a Moderate encounter and 3 for a Severe encounter. I speak of actual fight as you won't use much reagents when you're not attacking the enemy.
That might be what a white-room tool predicts, but a 2-3 round combat is very short, especially for a severe encounter! I'd say 5 to 6 rounds is more normal (this is based on actual play, not a model).
That might be what a white-room tool predicts, but a 2-3 round combat is very short, especially for a severe encounter! I'd say 5 to 6 rounds is more normal (this is based on actual play, not a model).Also, not sure if it's a pfs issue, since pfs adventures are specifically designed to be done very quickly (or so i hear), but normal combbts last way more than 2 rounds.I get this number from maths. The average damage of a character per round is roughly 10% of an encounter sum of hps. You can see it on Citricking's tool. It's higher for solo bosses, lower for multiple enemies but AoEs compensate. So, you need 2 rounds of actual fight to get rid of a Moderate encounter and 3 for a Severe encounter. I speak of actual fight as you won't use much reagents when you're not attacking the enemy.
It's not a white-room tool, it's just the number of hit points compared to the average damage of characters. Unless your players play Dagger Barbarians and Sling Rangers, they will dispatch a Severe encounter in 3 rounds of attacks from all party members.
And actual play is full of bias (players tend to give way more importance to long fights than to short ones). If you play on a VTT, go through your last session and you'll see that the average duration of your fights is way smaller than you think.Also, when I speak of 2-3 rounds of actual combat, I focus on resource consumption. If you need 2 rounds to kill the last running survivor because your party stopped casting spells and use resources I don't consider that "actual combat" as you're just beating on a dead body.
I do run my games in a VTT, and so can see how many rounds combat goes to very easily. 2 to 3 rounds would be at the shorter end, with 5 or 6 being typical. I end up my fights fairly promptly too - if there's one opponent left, and the whole party get to act before it, I'll wrap things up there and then rather than playing out to the dull inevitable end.
Remember, in a real fight the whole party can't attack at 100% every round. Maybe the fighter got slowed, and so only gets 1 attack. Maybe the wizard needs to focus on getting an unconscious person up before they make a recovery check. Maybe the rogue needs to run around a giant zone of greater darkness.
You might call that 'bias', but when you're making decisions about how to allocate resources, I'll take the bias of reality over the 'objective' proof of the damage dealing tool!
I do run my games in a VTT, and so can see how many rounds combat goes to very easily. 2 to 3 rounds would be at the shorter end, with 5 or 6 being typical. I end up my fights fairly promptly too - if there's one opponent left, and the whole party get to act before it, I'll wrap things up there and then rather than playing out to the dull inevitable end.
Remember, in a real fight the whole party can't attack at 100% every round. Maybe the fighter got slowed, and so only gets 1 attack. Maybe the wizard needs to focus on getting an unconscious person up before they make a recovery check. Maybe the rogue needs to run around a giant zone of greater darkness.
You might call that 'bias', but when you're making decisions about how to allocate resources, I'll take the bias of reality over the 'objective' proof of the damage dealing tool!
Well, there are multiple classical bias. For example, many people consider that a fight ending at round 5 lasted 5 rounds when it actually lasted less than 5 rounds.
Also, I'm speaking of "actual combat rounds". As this discussion is about the number of rounds where you use resources you have to cut on all the rounds where you are not using resources. The most classical ones being the last one where you let the Barbarian kill the last enemy but there are a bit more of them. For example, an unconscious character is obviously not doing much for the fight but they're also not using resources. If the fight lasts 4 rounds and you spend 2 rounds unconscious you'll use as much resources as a 2-round fight.
And then, there are party variations, some party can be suboptimal when it comes to damage.
I base myself on this 2-3 rounds of average fight duration to manage my resources (my main characters are resource dependent: a Sorcerer and an Alchemist) and it works fine. So, maybe is it a difference in experience, but the fact that theory validates my experience tends to make me feel I'm close to actual fight durations. If Severe encounters were really lasting 5-6 rounds, considering that my Sorcerer casts a spell of his 2 highest levels every round, I would need a long rest every other fight... That's very far from what I experience. And I think it's very far from what everybody experiences, as I think most casters need a long rest every 4 to 6 fights (which is what 2-3 rounds of fight would give if you consider one round casting a Focus Spell or lower level spell and 1-2 rounds casting a high level spell).