Here's to hoping for proficiency updates :)

[Dirge Of Hubris]

Virellius wrote:

I do feel this a lot with regards to the alchemist.

Playing in Gauntlight as an Alchemist bomber atm, and let me tell you: the class feels crippled.

I hit less often than our other ranged combatant (shortbow/dagger switch hitter rogue) and less efficiently.

I hit, and lets say I crit with an alchemist's fire. I hit for 2d8, plus 1 splash.

Rogue crits after hiding, a feat made more likely by their full dex focus AND attacking a flat-footed enemy regularly, they do 4d6+1d10 on a crit, with zero strength score.

Averaging out to 8 damage for me, and 17 for the rogue, if we take the middle ground of the dice.

Now, sure, I can debuff (debilitating from a rogue does the same), can target weakness (literally anyone can throw a bomb or have a rune on a weapon, and a rogue could easily carry a few spell arrows), and can craft potions and the like (also, literally anyone with Crafting can, and rogues can craft MORE and BETTER because of their frequent skill feats).

There is literally nothing a bomber brings to the table compared to other classes. The medicine skill makes potions almost unnecessary except as a very niche option.

The only real benefit I provide to the group is quick access to antiplagues and antidotes. Every single thing I could do is done better by the rogue, who also is trained in medicine.

What niche exactly is the alchemist supposed to fit?

This is literally what I've been seeing across the board for people playing an alchemist. The Alchemist is a crafting basket for better accuracy classes. IF you actually need one of your bombs to inflict their crit or direct hit debuff, you have the fighter throw it instead. I have been stuck in a limbo on whether or not to play a Hobgoblin Fighter or an Alchemist because even if I have to pay for for my crafts in downtime and coin, at least I can count on the bomb actually landing. Yes, Quicksilver Mutagen helps, but it's also going to be the first turn of combat every single time. Everyone else is doing their thing, and Alchs just have to sit back and prepare so they can still hit less on average? Come on now.

I feel like the design philosophy was low-hanging fruit: a non-magical character who does demi-magical effects. Except it doesn't compete with martial, magical, or skill based characters for the above reasons. No matter how you slice it, it's sad that your specialty class features are better off handed to someone else.

[Captain Morgan]

I don't want to seem dismissive of your personal experience, Vierellius, especially when I agree the alchemist should get master proficiency. In fact, that is one of many different buffs I've given them in the homebrew section of the forum. But I do think there are some issues with your comparisons.

Virellius wrote:

alchemist's fire. I hit for 2d8, plus 1 splash.

Rogue crits after hiding, a feat made more likely by their full dex focus AND attacking a flat-footed enemy regularly, they do 4d6+1d10 on a crit, with zero strength score.

Averaging out to 8 damage for me, and 17 for the rogue, if we take the middle ground of the dice.

Comparing a rogue who spent an extra action hiding (possibly failing at it)and gets a crit with a deadly weapon to a single action (assuming quick bomber, and you are a bomber) that deals damage on a failure is just about the worst example you could pick. If you want spikey crit fishing, the alchemist is probably the wrong class and you should try a gunslinger. But there are tons of folks who complain about crit fishing compared to consistent damage, and you don't get more consistent than hitting on a miss. That's pretty much a matter of taste.

Quote:

can target weakness (literally anyone can throw a bomb or have a rune on a weapon, and a rogue could easily carry a few spell arrows),

This is also problematic. Yes, any class could throw a bomb or have the right rune on their weapon to exploit a weakness. But only if they actually walk into the fight having purchased that item. The alchemist doesn't need to do that. Like a prepared caster, with minimal warning they can adapt a load-out to the current challenge. But unlike a prepared caster they can also whip out the perfect solution they didn't prepare.

Admittedly, the alchemist does need to have the relevant formula, but it is a darn sight cheaper to buy a formula than a rune or even a potion or a couple bombs.

Quote:

and can craft potions and the like (also, literally anyone with Crafting can, and rogues can craft MORE and BETTER because of their frequent skill feats).

Again, this assumes the rogue has the time, money, and foresight to craft these things. Skill feats don't actually do anything compared to the advantage of the alchemist: being able to craft things for free both every morning and on the fly.

Quote:

What niche exactly is the alchemist supposed to fit?

The alchemist doesn't really fit a per-designed niche. It is defined by its adaptability and support. When you white room their damage against another class that is in their ideal situation, it misses the point. The alchemist shines in a lot of specific moments that other classes struggle in. And it can kit out allies to make them even more dangerous. Poisoning weapons between fights is a huge DPR enhancer, for example.

Which isn't to say it doesn't have issues. It has too many math fixer feats. It needs better action economy and reasons to use its own items rather than hand them out. Its proficiency lags. Playing it well requires a HUGE amount of system mastery in stocking up on the right formulas and knowing when they are best deployed. (It feels more like an APG class in its complexity, and given that it gets stronger with each alchemical item released arguably should have been one.)

I wouldn't blame anyone for passing on the class without houserules or deciding to reroll after playing one, but I do think it has merit and does some things that no other class does.

[nephandys]

Quote:

can target weakness (literally anyone can throw a bomb or have a rune on a weapon, and a rogue could easily carry a few spell arrows),

Worth pointing out that bombs are martial weapons so it's not feasible for 'anyone' to throw bombs. My players ran into this issue while running Fall of Plaguestone.

[AnimatedPaper]

Captain Morgan wrote:

The alchemist doesn't really fit a per-designed niche. It is defined by its adaptability and support. When you white room their damage against another class that is in their ideal situation, it misses the point. The alchemist shines in a lot of specific moments that other classes struggle in. And it can kit out allies to make them even more dangerous. Poisoning weapons between fights is a huge DPR enhancer, for example.

Which isn't to say it doesn't have issues. It has too many math fixer feats. It needs better action economy and reasons to use its own items rather than hand them out. Its proficiency lags. Playing it well requires a HUGE amount of system mastery in stocking up on the right formulas and knowing when they are best deployed. (It feels more like an APG class in its complexity, and given that it gets stronger with each alchemical item released arguably should have been one.)

This all hits the nail on the head for me, though I would quibble with your last point, given the CRB Perpetual Infusions aren't set up to take advantage of new formulas, which I think is a design error (the Toxicologist is more like what I'd like to see).

I especially concur that it needs more reason to use its own stuff. MCing into Alchemist shows how strong it can be with the correct proficiencies, but I don't want it to be the class no one takes but a lot dabble in. That is an archetype (more accurately several archetypes), not a class.

[Sporkedup]

I mean, I'm personally keen on more than just proficiency buffs, but I could live with just those.

I'd like to see more specific power tied up research field. For example, if mutagenists are expected to run with bestial as a staple... They need more health. That or some built in mobility. They are slow, weak, and very easy to hit. I'd love to give chirurgeons a built in ability to throw any healing elixir as per Healing Bomb but with no quick alchemy/additive requirements. Just... Something.

Anyways. It seems like some of the folks who feel the class is in an okay spot rate the value of bombs as higher than they really are. The persistent damage is nice but very low. Getting the splash to a decent value costs multiple feats. It costs another feat to not take two actions for every attack (though for a fair few it still will). The actual damage is light on top of all that.

It's just a case where the versatility is being overpriced as far as class design goes, in my estimation.

[Watery Soup]

On the contrary, I think versatility is underpriced.

Too many people evaluate the class like cooking shows present recipes. Every ingredient is measured out in little glass bowls, the oven is preheated, and all the dishes are washed. BAM, Beef Wellington in 15 minutes. Oh, you don't have a proving drawer? You didn't have someone else grease your baking sheet for you? That's why it takes real people 2.5 hours.

Rogues don't automatically get sneak attack, they only do from certain squares. Melee fighters do more damage than even ranged fighters because ranged fighters can hit more squares than melee fighters. These counterarguments have been brought up before, so I won't go too deep and focus on two that people haven't elaborated:

1. Alchemists, if they were to use all their reagents for Advanced Alchemy, get 3x WBL every day for consumables. It's only 1x WBL every day if entirely Quick Alchemy, and it's less if you consider Wealth by Next Level (1.5 to 2-fold increase every level) rather than Wealth by Current Level, but the fact that you're comparing daily allotments to whole Levels' worth of wealth is what's interesting. If, instead of evaluating by damage (that is, the monetary reward is constant and it's just a function of surviving the combat), you were to evaluate by money accumulated, you can see why an alchemist throwing a "free" bomb is way better than a fighter throwing a consumable bomb.

2. A party of 4 alchemists is a terrible party. But so is a party of 4 fighters. A party of 2 alchemists and 2 fighters is likely to outperform both single-class parties. And this leads to a big part that people miss - in PFS, essentially what happens is that your party changes every scenario. If you were to select 6 random players from the pool, what classes would work the best overall? That is, if you were a rogue and could not count on there being a second melee combatant for flanking, your value goes down. If you're a spontaneous blaster spellcaster and could not count on there being a healer, the value of your spell list goes down. If you're traveling to the Elemental Plane of Fire, everyone's going to wish they had 30 moderate frost vials, just for that adventure. This is where versatility comes in - a prepared spellcaster can prepare different spells; the alchemist can prepare different bombs. They are more versatile than spontaneous spellcasters (locked in to certain spells), and more versatile than other ranged combatants (archers deal primarily piercing only).

Prepared spellcasters and alchemists are versatile because they're able to rearrange to a new challenge without huge capital investments. On the flip side, if you know for certain that you're going to have two melee combatants, an arcane spellcaster, and a divine spellcaster, the alchemist isn't going to pull their weight.

---

Let's be clear - an alchemist isn't for everyone. It's also not for every group. It does really well in PFS (huge diversity in scenarios and party compositions, and low combat challenge [because there's generally no option to retreat without a reward penalty, you can't retreat, rest, and come back the next day]). It actually doesn't do any worse in predictable scenarios/compositions on an absolute level - but many of the less versatile classes can rearrange their builds and permanent items so that relative to the alchemist they do a lot better. A non-versatile character that's well-prepared is going to end up scoring 8/10 or something, but an unprepared character may end up 2/10. An alchemist is always going to be a 4/10 to 6/10 or something, so if you're going to compare it to specialized characters doing their specialty, it always looks bad. But I happily show up with an alchemist and expect to have fun / perform okay knowing zero about who the other party members are or where we're going.

[Sporkedup]

Eh, I'm more talking the weighting of versatility. They overvalue the importance of having a broad variety of damage types by keeping the damage low, the accuracy lower, and the action cost generally not great.

You and I disagree on where the line is between versatility and effectiveness. I think that are welcome to keep their versatility but increase effectiveness. I think they're honestly they're that far behind the rest of the classes.

[Alchemic_Genius]

From my experience playing an alchemist, I've found the versatility to be really helpful in playing a support character. Quick Alchemy is a unique tool that I've used quite a bit in making really tricky problems pretty easy. My damage is only okay because of accuracy, but there's never a time out of combat where I can't help in a meaningful way.

Imo, the main fix the alchemist needs is trading away the "make 3 quick alchemy items" with master weapons, an update to bomber that allows for any common bomb type, and just a general overhaul of the supposed healer option

Also, fingers crossed guns and gears gives us have a way to rune up our bombs (my homebrew does have a "bomber's gloves" item that can be etched with fundamental and property runes) and just more cool alchemical tools in general

[Staffan Johansson]

Watery Soup wrote:

1. Alchemists, if they were to use all their reagents for Advanced Alchemy, get 3x WBL every day for consumables.

That's a real weird way of looking at it. For one thing, alchemical items are generally underpowered compared to magic consumables. For example, a level 13 greater elixir of life costs 600 gp and heals 7d6+18 hp (average 42.5), while a level 12 greater healing potion costs 400 gp and heals 6d8+20 (average 47). The elixir also gives you a net +1 (compared to resilient armor) to saves vs disease and poison, but that's a really minor benefit in the larger scheme of things, and less than you'd get by drinking equal-level antidotes and antiplagues (so ironically, if your alchemist outfits you with those at the start of the day, part of the effect of elixirs of life is wasted). Or, just to get ridiculous, compare an 11th level greater alchemist fire bomb (3d8 fire + 3 persistant fire + 3 fire splash damage) to, say, a scroll of Chain Lightning (also an 11th level item) that deals 8d12 damage to a large number of people in close proximity to one another.

I'm not using this to compare the power of a caster and an alchemist (an 11th level alchemist has a significantly larger number of 11th level bombs available than an 11th level caster has 6th level spells available, after all), but just pointing out that not all consumables are created equal.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Ah yes. Let's use Schrodinger's Alchemist as a reason to make Alchemists such a bad class to play. Because he knows what to prepare ahead of time and has every formula needed to overcome every obstacle ever.

Just accept that Alchemists are junk and that Paizo dropped the ball on them, and on Alchemy in general.

[Sporkedup]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Ah yes. Let's use Schrodinger's Alchemist as a reason to make Alchemists such a bad class to play. Because he knows what to prepare ahead of time and has every formula needed to overcome every obstacle ever.

Just accept that Alchemists are junk and that Paizo dropped the ball on them, and on Alchemy in general.

Might be a middle ground here.

Alchemy is both interesting and evocative, to my experience. New players are incredibly intrigued. But until gameplay matches that promise, there will be ongoing discussions.

The most important point to me in all this is that they are just one targeted errata away from being a ton of fun. There is tons of potential in this class, which is clear because of how much fun bombs and mutagens and all are when used by a full martial!

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Sporkedup wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Ah yes. Let's use Schrodinger's Alchemist as a reason to make Alchemists such a bad class to play. Because he knows what to prepare ahead of time and has every formula needed to overcome every obstacle ever.

Just accept that Alchemists are junk and that Paizo dropped the ball on them, and on Alchemy in general.

Might be a middle ground here.

Alchemy is both interesting and evocative, to my experience. New players are incredibly intrigued. But until gameplay matches that promise, there will be ongoing discussions.

The most important point to me in all this is that they are just one targeted errata away from being a ton of fun. There is tons of potential in this class, which is clear because of how much fun bombs and mutagens and all are when used by a full martial!

I'm only intrigued by alchemy because it's stupid expensive. Expensive = wealthy, wealthy = valuable, valuable = lots of gold for us. Might as well raid every alchemy area for a retirement fund, because Alchemy items are just bad to use.

[Kekkres]

I give alchemists (and warpriests) master with weapons at 14, and I cook quick bombs into the core class as follows:

Organized Alchemy.
Your alchemical items are stored intelligently for availability and ease of use, you may draw any alchemical item and toss, strike or perform an interaction using it as a single action.

With toss referring to a new general action

Toss >
General action
You may toss an object you are holding to another creature, if the creature has a reaction and a free hand availible they may use their reaction to catch the object. If an object is not caught it lands harmlessly at the targets feet. An object may be tossed up to 15 feet. Objects with 2 or more bulk cannot be tossed.

Collectively this has put the alchemist at my table in a pretty good place. I'm not sure about mutagenist though, they might need additional help.

[Ediwir]

Virellius wrote:

There is literally nothing a bomber brings to the table compared to other classes.

What niche exactly is the alchemist supposed to fit?

THANK YOU, I've been saying this for ages.

Alchemist has the most reliable long term buffs in the game, but nooooo, bombs are the only way to play it. And then there's the complaints.

Bomber is good if you want to add some offense to your alchemist, but it's never, never going to work as a powerful main staple. Use your elixirs. Use your mutagens. That's what Alchemist is good at. You're trying to play a sword specialist wizard without touching your spells.

[Dirge Of Hubris]

Are we all just glazing over the fact that Alchemist mutagens and elixirs are extremely limited compared to the spell equivalents per the same level as well? Like, the comparison of a "sword specialist wizard" is el primo for proving my point rather than "bombers are ignoring their generalist class features." If people are having trouble with this now, what happens when the Magus releases? It's going to have buffs to share and be able to hit with dual class features. Do we have the ability to coat our weapons in a bomb? Do we have consistent buffs that also do not carry drawbacks? Bombs are clearly not the only way to play it; Alchemist just also isn't as good as other alternatives at the other things as well. Except toxicologist, clearly, which is ultra niche.

"Alchemists can do this ALL day" is a bad hypothetical because ALL day doesn't help in the fights, skill checks, or roleplaying when the rubber hits the road rim first. WBL comparisons to boot. While I enjoy using a formula to argue validity of an alchemist, it's arbitrary and up for more changes as this game evolves. "I hope this fight drags out long enough for me to shine" is such a just penultimate sad way to consider a class.

[Sporkedup]

Ediwir wrote:

Virellius wrote:

There is literally nothing a bomber brings to the table compared to other classes.

What niche exactly is the alchemist supposed to fit?

THANK YOU, I've been saying this for ages.

Alchemist has the most reliable long term buffs in the game, but nooooo, bombs are the only way to play it. And then there's the complaints.

Bomber is good if you want to add some offense to your alchemist, but it's never, never going to work as a powerful main staple. Use your elixirs. Use your mutagens. That's what Alchemist is good at. You're trying to play a sword specialist wizard without touching your spells.

Heaven forfend that an alchemist want to succeed with their only notable active combat ability? Short of the bestial mutagen, which is its own wild can of worms.

I'm very much for support alchemists. But support shouldn't be the only face of this class. Just think of them as alchemists' cantrips maybe?

[Ediwir]

Sporkedup wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Virellius wrote:

There is literally nothing a bomber brings to the table compared to other classes.

What niche exactly is the alchemist supposed to fit?

THANK YOU, I've been saying this for ages.

Alchemist has the most reliable long term buffs in the game, but nooooo, bombs are the only way to play it. And then there's the complaints.

Bomber is good if you want to add some offense to your alchemist, but it's never, never going to work as a powerful main staple. Use your elixirs. Use your mutagens. That's what Alchemist is good at. You're trying to play a sword specialist wizard without touching your spells.

Heaven forfend that an alchemist want to succeed with their only notable active combat ability? Short of the bestial mutagen, which is its own wild can of worms.

I'm very much for support alchemists. But support shouldn't be the only face of this class. Just think of them as alchemists' cantrips maybe?

Not at all, but it's undoubtedly the main component. Every class has a specialty - Alchemist's is support and buff, whether people like it or not.

I'm not advocating for pure utility, but I see so many people outright ignoring that element and then complaining about feeling bad... It's jarring.

[Watery Soup]

Ediwir wrote:

I'm not advocating for pure utility, but I see so many people outright ignoring that element and then complaining about feeling bad... It's jarring.

Not only jarring, but it's super facepalmy when on other threads people complain about stuff like "monsters hit me on natural 6 and I don't have a way to boost my AC higher".

Shrug.

[Captain Morgan]

Watery Soup wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

I'm not advocating for pure utility, but I see so many people outright ignoring that element and then complaining about feeling bad... It's jarring.

Not only jarring, but it's super facepalmy when on other threads people complain about stuff like "monsters hit me on natural 6 and I don't have a way to boost my AC higher".

Shrug.

Alchemist, Bard, Barbarian, and archery Ranger would make an interesting party. The buffs and debuffs would help the barbarian really hammer people into the ground, and a Ranger with quick draw is a heckuva bomber.

[graystone]

Ediwir wrote:

I'm not advocating for pure utility, but I see so many people outright ignoring that element and then complaining about feeling bad... It's jarring.

There is a difference between ignoring it and not being impressed with it.

Watery Soup wrote:

Not only jarring, but it's super facepalmy when on other threads people complain about stuff like "monsters hit me on natural 6 and I don't have a way to boost my AC higher".

What alchemy item is giving a significant boost in AC? If it's drakeheart, it's maybe 1 better than other alternatives along with a free –1 penalty to Will saves, Reflex saves, and all skill checks to Recall Knowledge... Going from "monsters hit me on natural 6" to "monsters hit me on natural 7 and a –1 penalty to Will saves, Reflex saves, and all skill checks to Recall Knowledge" isn't what I'd call impressive of something that gives a good reason to take the class IMO.

[Squiggit]

Ediwir wrote:

It's jarring.

I don't really see what's particularly jarring about somebody feeling frustrated, annoyed or let down when the class fails to properly deliver on some concept.

That there's some entirely different way to play the class that might work okay (but let's be real, still not great) doesn't really have any bearing.

This whole notion of ridiculing people for not "getting it" and just telling them to play some entirely different character just reeks of bad faith more than anything else.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Ediwir wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Virellius wrote:

There is literally nothing a bomber brings to the table compared to other classes.

What niche exactly is the alchemist supposed to fit?

THANK YOU, I've been saying this for ages.

Alchemist has the most reliable long term buffs in the game, but nooooo, bombs are the only way to play it. And then there's the complaints.

Bomber is good if you want to add some offense to your alchemist, but it's never, never going to work as a powerful main staple. Use your elixirs. Use your mutagens. That's what Alchemist is good at. You're trying to play a sword specialist wizard without touching your spells.

Heaven forfend that an alchemist want to succeed with their only notable active combat ability? Short of the bestial mutagen, which is its own wild can of worms.

I'm very much for support alchemists. But support shouldn't be the only face of this class. Just think of them as alchemists' cantrips maybe?

Not at all, but it's undoubtedly the main component. Every class has a specialty - Alchemist's is support and buff, whether people like it or not.

I'm not advocating for pure utility, but I see so many people outright ignoring that element and then complaining about feeling bad... It's jarring.

No, support and buff is Bard's schtick, not Alchemist's. 1st level Bard outsupports and outbuffs Alchemist all day every day, not including feats and spells. Alchemist's entire purpose being trounced by a single composition cantrip does not support your claim whatsoever. And Bard can have much more going for it besides buff and support, I've seen as much in one of our groups currently, being able to wade into melee while buffing while supporting while debuffing.

Alchemist's schtick is, you know, Alchemy. And it's bad. And it feels bad to play or work with. Even worse than PF1 levels of bad. It needs to be fixed. Telling someone "You're playing it wrong," when the game outright tries to give you options purposefully designed to play it the way you claim is wrong, is a horrible argument to make. Don't use bombs when you take a bomber specialization is like saying don't cast spells when you take a wizard class, use crossbows and quarterstaves instead. I mean, what?

[NemoNoName]

Yup. I've seen 2 alchemist at least 2 Alchemist so far give up on the class. And those were new players.

Personally, I tried making a Mutagen Alchemist, even talked the DM into giving us free Archetype so I can get more armour, optimized the shit out of it...

And even I had to give up because it's simply crap. Wasn't doing anything useful. Even the Healing Elixirs... I mean, level 1 healing elixirs give you d6 HP back, even for low HP classes this is barely registering on level 1 unless you roll good.

Also saw a few Alchemist in PFS games, but... I literally can't remember any details about them except for 1, whose contribution to the party were running around and raising people from unconscious (with too few HP due to Elixirs of Life being so subpar, so they dropped immediately down).

[dmerceless]

NemoNoName wrote:

Yup. I've seen 2 alchemist at least 2 Alchemist so far give up on the class. And those were new players.

Very similar experience here. We've had two or three Alchemists from release to now, and all three dropped the class out of sheer frustration. Nowadays my group just kind of pretends Alchemist doesn't exist.

And I 100% agree with what Squiggit said. Telling someone they don't get it won't make them have more fun with the class. To me it sounds like a more polite variation of "git gud scrubz", if I'm being honest. If there's such a large amount of people "not getting" the class, then it's the class that is not delivering on its concept well.

[Romão98]

Maybe a new book focus on epic levels adventures with a set of new rules to level up characters beyond level 20. I like that and then we'll get access to ways of increase some status to legendary.

[Unicore]

Would someone please tell the player of the goblin Pyro bomber who MC'd into Fire Oracle in my campaign that Alchemists are a terrible offensive class. All of my enemies who are almost constantly on fire would tend to disagree.

[Cyouni]

Last time I did the math on alchemist bombs, they seemed fine to me, but I wanted to check again, so here you go.

Quote:

Level 1 alchemist: 16 Dex, 18 Int, trained; lesser fire (1d8, 1 persistent, 1 splash - 7.5 average on success with persistent); lesser lightning (1d6, 1 splash - 4.5 average on success), Quick Bomber

Level 5 alchemist: 18 Dex, 19 Int, trained; moderate fire (2d8, 2 persistent, 4 splash - 17 average on success); moderate lightning (2d6, 4 splash - 11 average on success), Calculated Splash
Level 10 alchemist: 19 Dex, 20 Int, expert; moderate fire (2d8, 2 persistent, 7 splash - 20 average on success); moderate lightning (2d6, 7 splash - 14 average on success), Expanded Splash
Level 15 alchemist: 20 Dex, 21 Int, expert; greater fire (3d8+2, 3 persistent, 8 splash - 29.5 average on success); greater lightning (3d6+2, 8 splash - 19.5 average on success), Expanded Splash

Level 1 fighter: 18 Dex, 14 Str, expert; shortbow (1d6+2, deadly d10 - average 5.5 on success), Point-Blank Shot
Level 5 fighter: 19 Dex, 16 Str, master; +1 striking composite shortbow (2d6+3, deadly d10 - average 10 on success), Double Shot
Level 10 fighter: 20 Dex, 18 Str, master; +1 striking composite shortbow (2d6+7, deadly d10 - average 14 on success), Triple Shot
Level 15 fighter: 21 Dex, 19 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking composite shortbow (3d6+12, deadly 2d10 - average 22.5 on success), Triple Shot

Level 1 vs AC 15:
Alchemist +6: 5.2/3.25 average on alchemist's fire, 3.4/2.2 average on bottled lightning
Fighter +9: 6.875/3.3 average on shortbow

Level 5 vs AC 21:
Alchemist +12: 12.5/8.2 average on alchemist's fire, 7.8/6 average on bottled lightning
Fighter +16: 12.65/6.275 average on shortbow
Fighter +14/+14: 10.1 average per shot

Level 10 vs AC 29:
Alchemist +19: 14.25/9.95 average on alchemist's fire, 10.85/8.05 average on bottled lightning
Fighter +22: 13.5/7.225 average on shortbow
Fighter +20/+20: 10.25 average per shot
Fighter +18/+18/+18: 7.925 average per shot

Level 15 vs AC 36:
Alchemist +26: 20.2/13.625 average on alchemist's fire, 14.45/10.375 damage on bottled lightning
Fighter +30: 25.25/14.05 average on shortbow
Fighter +28/+28: 19.65 average per shot
Fighter +26/+26/+26: 14.05 average per shot

So you'll notice here that they're doing decently comparable damage to a ranged fighter so long as they can throw out alchemist's fire. Note that this is slightly deceptive, however, as this includes persistent damage, which won't stack if you keep chucking bombs at the same target. This does lose them a bit of damage on success/crit, but does nothing to their failure damage, which is actually where a quarter of their expected damage comes from. Side note that a goblin with Burn It will also do even more damage, but I don't want to try and work that in to this comparison.

The biggest problem here for them is level 1, where they both don't have the damage (thanks to getting no boosts), and don't have enough bombs to really keep doing that. They also fall off pretty hard in the level 15 comparison because they're not getting that proficiency upgrade or greater weapon specialization, but Bombers will get 15 foot splash that could help compensate for that a bit.

Side note: this is not actually exclusive to the Bomber field - any alchemist who decides to spec into damage can do this, though with a little less longevity thanks to having less bombs.

The biggest problem is that they need the math fixers of Expanded/Calculated Splash to do this, but damage is not really a problem if you're trying to do that as a bomber. This is also why the invested bomber doesn't want to hand their bombs off to others, because that big splash damage isn't happening with them.

TL;DR: Do not underestimate the splash damage of an invested bomber alchemist.

[Cyouni]

Virellius wrote:

I do feel this a lot with regards to the alchemist.

Playing in Gauntlight as an Alchemist bomber atm, and let me tell you: the class feels crippled.

I hit less often than our other ranged combatant (shortbow/dagger switch hitter rogue) and less efficiently.

I hit, and lets say I crit with an alchemist's fire. I hit for 2d8, plus 1 splash.

Rogue crits after hiding, a feat made more likely by their full dex focus AND attacking a flat-footed enemy regularly, they do 4d6+1d10 on a crit, with zero strength score.

Averaging out to 8 damage for me, and 17 for the rogue, if we take the middle ground of the dice.

Know what you should really be doing in this situation? Prep bottled lightning instead, and tell the rogue to wait until after you.

Inflicting flat-footed for the rogue, in addition to your damage, will do a lot more damage contribution to the fight than just trying to throw alchemist fires at the enemy. That also lets the rogue take two attacks instead of one, and makes it so they don't have to find cover/concealment and make a Hide check that they could fail.

(Also, there's nothing stopping you from making Hide checks as well.)

[NemoNoName]

That calculation seems to entirely ignore the problem of hitting with Alchemists. Which is the main issue.

Not to mention that ranged Fighter will easily make multiple attacks per round. And you yourself include various math fixer feats to make Alchemist kinda similar.

Same problem with Bottle Lighting. Awesome idea, my players caught on to it... And then proceeded to consistently miss with their bombs.

Especially on boss characters where you really want to apply something like this.

[Cyouni]

NemoNoName wrote:

That calculation seems to entirely ignore the problem of hitting with Alchemists. Which is the main issue.

Splash damage applies on a fail. And you do a lot of splash damage.

Turns out that having splash damage even on a miss increases your damage by a lot, accounting for about a quarter of your damage. On bottled lightning, for example, it increases your damage by 3.2/14.5 and 4/10 on those two attacks.

[Sporkedup]

Quite a few other things ignored in this white room math, yeah.

Being an OSD class means the alchemist has low stats in everything except int and dex.

Bows have much bigger range than thrown bombs, so safety is much more provided.

Bows have the option for damaging property runes.

Fighters get critical specialization, adding an action drain on crit and not just the Deadly damage.

Fighters don't hit their damn friends when they attack an enemy (bombers can avoid this, it's true).

And plenty more. In practice, any archer martial is gonna feel better, deal much more and more consistent damage, and do it all with a greater deal of safety.

Can bombers succeed? Of course. Do they need a lot of help? Yes please. I'm kicking around some ideas that will probably overcompensate for their weaknesses, but truthfully I think they need more than just an accuracy fix.

Because once you start comparing a bomber to a martial using thrown weapons? You'll see they fall way behind.

[Sporkedup]

Cyouni wrote:

Turns out that having splash damage even on a miss increases your damage by a lot, accounting for about a quarter of your damage.

That's actually... Brutally sad.

[Cyouni]

Sporkedup wrote:

Quite a few other things ignored in this white room math, yeah.

Being an OSD class means the alchemist has low stats in everything except int and dex.

Bows have much bigger range than thrown bombs, so safety is much more provided.

Bows have the option for damaging property runes.

Fighters get critical specialization, adding an action drain on crit and not just the Deadly damage.

Fighters don't hit their damn friends when they attack an enemy (bombers can avoid this, it's true).

And plenty more. In practice, any archer martial is gonna feel better, deal much more and more consistent damage, and do it all with a greater deal of safety.

Can bombers succeed? Of course. Do they need a lot of help? Yes please. I'm kicking around some ideas that will probably overcompensate for their weaknesses, but truthfully I think they need more than just an accuracy fix.

Because once you start comparing a bomber to a martial using thrown weapons? You'll see they fall way behind.

Most thrown weapons are d6, and if you want to use them more than once, you're going to need a returning rune. Coincidentally, that matches their damage pretty close to a composite shortbow with Point-Blank Shot, which was specifically used to boost the fighter's damage. So realistically? Damage stays pretty similar, actually favouring the bow.

You'll also notice that the fighter has to keep both Str and Dex high for this, which mirrors how the alchemist needs Dex/Int.

Also, I'm not even bothering to do math on splash damage on groups, because that would be kinda rough. Each enemy nearby the first increases your damage by a significant amount, accounting for damage approximately equal to the splash (well, 95%, thanks to crit fails), which is a massive boost when you can avoid catching your allies in it. Hit two enemies in the splash at level 10? Expect an additional 14 damage on the first bomb, and approximately 10.5 on the second - which can actually be pretty vicious if there's weaknesses in the mix.

Splash damage can be a lot of damage, and ignoring it makes damage look a lot worse than it is.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Playing as an alchemist, damage is honestly p bad, and idk if there's anything beyond a total overhaul of bombs that will change that. Most of my combat stuff is handled through spells (picked up via multiclass) or stacking status conditions via debilitating bomb.

Like, maybe MY strike will be weak, but a clumsy flatfooted target isn't going to enjoy the crits my team's martials throw at it.

[Cyouni]

Sporkedup wrote:

Because once you start comparing a bomber to a martial using thrown weapons? You'll see they fall way behind.

High-speed napkin math:

Completely damage-optimized trident fighter, assuming returning trident because you desperately need that to throw with:
Level 1 fighter: 18 Dex, 16 Str, expert; javelin for +9 (1d6+3 - average 6.5 on success) - averaging 6.5/3.575
Level 5 fighter: 19 Dex, 18 Str, master; +1 striking returning trident for +16 (2d8+4 - average 13 on success) - averaging 14.3/7.8 damage
Level 10 fighter: 20 Dex, 19 Str, master; +1 striking returning trident for +22 (2d8+7 - average 16 on success) - averaging 14.4/8 damage
Level 15 fighter: 21 Dex, 20 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking flaming returning trident for +30 (3d8+13+1d6 - average 30 on success) - averaging 30/16.5 damage

Even against this 100% optimized for damage comparison, alchemist can surprisingly make up most of the difference by catching 1 enemy in the splash at level 15, the worst level for comparison. Not that much difference from the bow fighter at other levels, level 5 being the biggest disparity due to damage die + Str.

[graystone]

Unicore wrote:

Would someone please tell the player of the goblin Pyro bomber who MC'd into Fire Oracle in my campaign that Alchemists are a terrible offensive class.

Sure. 'Alchemists are a terrible offensive class'. Does a very specific build do better? *shrug* maybe. It's like saying PF1 warriors where a great offensive because a specific race/feat selection let them work better than the norm.

[PossibleCabbage]

One issue is that in PF1 a lot of 3/4 BAB 2/3 casting classes could be effectively "good at everything" if built correctly, so you could build PF1 alchemists as utility frontline DPS tanks skill monkeys (before the protector familiar got nerfed at least).

The PF2 alchemist isn't even trying to do all of those things, as niches are protected a lot better in PF2.

[Captain Morgan]

Sporkedup wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Turns out that having splash damage even on a miss increases your damage by a lot, accounting for about a quarter of your damage.

That's actually... Brutally sad.

This seems to highlight the big bomb problem. Splash damage actually makes the DPR pretty competitive but most people don't like dealing those smaller chunks of damage, especially when using a consumable. The crit example complained about earlier echoes this. I'ma not entirely sure how you fix that without getting rid of splash damage.

It probably doesn't help when people think mad bomber they don't think incremental chip damage, they think "blowing stuff the hell up with a massive explosion." Which is done much better with a fireball, to be honest, but that's less apparent if you don't understand the spell lists already.

[Sporkedup]

Thanks for running that math, Cyouni. Not my strong suit! I did forget that other classes don't have ways to use strength to throw weapons. That does change the value cost a bit.

That said, the issue of feel is still pretty prominent. Dealing splash only anyways seems to feel like a pittance--especially given that it doesn't proc the bombs' particular specialities. It's the same for spellcasters at my table. Player failure or target success both appear to be as disappointing as doing nothing at all.

It's a similar question to the crit-fishing math on the magus playtest, if you ask me. The math pans out in the long run to be some degree of fair, but too much of the time in practice it feels very underwhelming for the player involved. Obviously not universally true, but anecdotally prevalent enough?

[Sporkedup]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Turns out that having splash damage even on a miss increases your damage by a lot, accounting for about a quarter of your damage.

That's actually... Brutally sad.

This seems to highlight the big bomb problem. Splash damage actually makes the DPR pretty competitive but most people don't like dealing those smaller chunks of damage, especially when using a consumable. The crit example complained about earlier echoes this. I'ma not entirely sure how you fix that without getting rid of splash damage.

It probably doesn't help when people think mad bomber they don't think incremental chip damage, they think "blowing stuff the hell up with a massive explosion." Which is done much better with a fireball, to be honest, but that's less apparent if you don't understand the spell lists already.

Even better than a fireball is a barbarian using

Spoiler:

explosive runes

[Captain Morgan]

Sporkedup wrote:

Thanks for running that math, Cyouni. Not my strong suit! I did forget that other classes don't have ways to use strength to throw weapons. That does change the value cost a bit.

That said, the issue of feel is still pretty prominent. Dealing splash only anyways seems to feel like a pittance--especially given that it doesn't proc the bombs' particular specialities. It's the same for spellcasters at my table. Player failure or target success both appear to be as disappointing as doing nothing at all.

It's a similar question to the crit-fishing math on the magus playtest, if you ask me. The math pans out in the long run to be some degree of fair, but too much of the time in practice it feels very underwhelming for the player involved. Obviously not universally true, but anecdotally prevalent enough?

OK, I don't entirely get this. Splash damage on a failure is just about as far opposite of crit-fishing as you can get this. One is lower but more consistent damage, the other is less consistent damage spikes.

If neither of those things is acceptable, what are you hoping for in a damage dealer? Not trying to be a jerk here I just genuinely don't understand. I mean, I get wanting better accuracy from the alchemist, but gunslingers have the best accuracy in the game. What is the middle ground I'm overlooking here?

[graystone]

Captain Morgan wrote:

OK, I don't entirely get this. Splash damage on a failure is just about as far opposite of crit-fishing as you can get this. One is lower but more consistent damage, the other is less consistent damage spikes.

I think he means it's like crit-fishing in that you have to look for damage outside the 'bread and butter' normal hits to keep up.

Captain Morgan wrote:

What is the middle ground I'm overlooking here?

I don't think an eventual master in bombs would be out of place: being a weapon focused specialization that doesn't see a proficiency boost past 7th feels pretty bad.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Thanks for running that math, Cyouni. Not my strong suit! I did forget that other classes don't have ways to use strength to throw weapons. That does change the value cost a bit.

That said, the issue of feel is still pretty prominent. Dealing splash only anyways seems to feel like a pittance--especially given that it doesn't proc the bombs' particular specialities. It's the same for spellcasters at my table. Player failure or target success both appear to be as disappointing as doing nothing at all.

It's a similar question to the crit-fishing math on the magus playtest, if you ask me. The math pans out in the long run to be some degree of fair, but too much of the time in practice it feels very underwhelming for the player involved. Obviously not universally true, but anecdotally prevalent enough?

OK, I don't entirely get this. Splash damage on a failure is just about as far opposite of crit-fishing as you can get this. One is lower but more consistent damage, the other is less consistent damage spikes.

If neither of those things is acceptable, what are you hoping for in a damage dealer? Not trying to be a jerk here I just genuinely don't understand. I mean, I get wanting better accuracy from the alchemist, but gunslingers have the best accuracy in the game. What is the middle ground I'm overlooking here?

Well, the obvious parallel between splash damage (and debilitating bomb effects) is on-success spell saving throws, in that something still happens in a negative outcome, not crit-fishing, which is extra on top of an already favorable outcome.

Using that comparison, most saved-against spells are very underwhelming for their power cost. At 5th level, a successfully saved Slow spell just makes an enemy waste an action. It is somewhat useful on boss enemies at best, not so much for on-level or below-level enemies. Which is done only a few times per day, max, or a Fireball which does half of 6D6, or 10 damage on average per target.

Whereas an Alchemist can throw a bomb at far less range (getting less likely to succeed the further away they are, a fact not shared with spells, the more appropriate comparison), for far less damage (2D6+Int with Int splash) for far less area of affected targets (10 ft. Versus 20 ft.), as their consumable class feature. And they have worse scaling with damage, DCs, to-hit, and so on. They might be able to get around resistances/immunities, and exploit weaknesses, but that in and of itself is relatively niche, even if I totally wish Admixture subschool from PF1 was a thing.

[Sporkedup]

Graystone is about there.

More specifically, it's about how white room math translates to actual play experience. The effects on a critical weapon strike for the magus and for a successful bomb hit got the alchemist are what players are looking to do. The magus as it were did a lot of weapon hits but spell failures, which is similar to the alchemist doing splash hit but bomb failures.

The damage dealt despite the airball helps bend the dpr math to look more healthy than it feels. Because all players are feeling is "my bomb/spellstrike failed." Again, anecdotally.

Does that make my position clearer?

[Dirge Of Hubris]

Sporkedup wrote:

The damage dealt despite the airball helps bend the dpr math to look more healthy than it feels. Because all players are feeling is "my bomb/spellstrike failed." Again, anecdotally.

I was founding my entire argument on this understanding. Because at the end of the day, it is a role playing, story telling experience. If you narrated your combat rolls, it's gonna be another sad day.

"Hey, Alchy. You ever consider actually hitting the enemy with one of those wild tosses of yours?"
'WAIT. I did my share there. I did like 20 damage.'
"... Across ten bombs that didn't hit." *Laugh track*

Averages are nice, but that's all they are. The fighter in the white room also has a sizeable AC and HP pool.

[Squiggit]

Captain Morgan wrote:

OK, I don't entirely get this. Splash damage on a failure is just about as far opposite of crit-fishing as you can get this. One is lower but more consistent damage, the other is less consistent damage spikes.

The counterbalancing systems go in opposite directions, but the fundamental issue is pretty much the same: A character that fails a lot but has some secondary feature propping up their averages.

For the magus, it was the potential for extreme nova (and very high buff synergy). For the alchemist, it's damage on a miss.

But for both classes, the end result is that you have someone balanced around the assumption that they're going to fail moreso than their peers who are also attacking a lot. IDK it feels pretty understandable why that might frustrate someone.

Quote:

If neither of those things is acceptable, what are you hoping for in a damage dealer?

Success oriented gameplay. It might be psychological to some degree, but it's nice to have a character that succeeds because they're good at what they do, not just because things happen when they fail.

[Captain Morgan]

Sporkedup wrote:

Graystone is about there.

More specifically, it's about how white room math translates to actual play experience. The effects on a critical weapon strike for the magus and for a successful bomb hit got the alchemist are what players are looking to do. The magus as it were did a lot of weapon hits but spell failures, which is similar to the alchemist doing splash hit but bomb failures.

The damage dealt despite the airball helps bend the dpr math to look more healthy than it feels. Because all players are feeling is "my bomb/spellstrike failed." Again, anecdotally.

Does that make my position clearer?

It does, but I'm not entirely sure what to do about it besides just play a strength fighter or barbarian with a d12 weapon. I get wanting master accuracy, which is one of my house rules. But it seems like the common thread between splash damage and crit damage is crappy minimum damage, and the only thing that gets around that in this game is strength and cantrips.

I'm not accusing you of this specifically, but I also think in general people haven't fully calibrated their expectations for ranged damage. In PF1 many of the best DPR builds involved archery, bombs, or guns. In PF2, all of those per hit are much lower than melee damage, and frankly should be. Being in melee is dangerous. Being able to inflict damage at range is such a huge tactical advantage, especially when you can kite enemies or make them waste actions chasing you.

Cyouni's numbers show bombs are comparable to other ranged damage. But at the table, people are often seeing the damage dealt by the giant instinct barbarian and pretty much any ranged damage is small potatoes to that. This was a common complaint about cantrips early on.

[graystone]

Captain Morgan wrote:

But at the table, people are often seeing the damage dealt by the giant instinct barbarian and pretty much any ranged damage is small potatoes to that. This was a common complaint about cantrips early on.

It's not really ranged damage but the whole thing: you can see a ranger with a bow pump out lots of damage at range with a better chance to hit and more often. You can see the other side with a Precision ranger with one big hit. You can have a rogue sneak attacking with a shortbow. You can have an investigator with bow and Devising a Stratagem/Strategic Strike. Comparing that to splash on a miss doesn't impress.

[Sporkedup]

Yeah, I tend to try to compare melee damage to champions, unless I'm responding to an example. Barbarians, fighters, and rangers all offer their own muckery, as do the precision classes.

I mean, I know what I want. I want bomber alchemists to deal more damage than a champion with a bow. I went over on the previous page a handful of direct disadvantages they have against a ranged martial. You can tell me it's busted and will ruin the white room, but I want 5/13 master curved proficiency... And for the bomber research field, calculated splash as a feature at level 1 and expanded splash as level 9. Being an OSD class with no crit specialization and no property runes available already puts them at some serious disadvantages.

I dunno. Given that their primary combat ability is "throw bombs," I just don't feel it's a bad idea to let them do it at a better clip than your average ranged martial.

[Staffan Johansson]

Ediwir wrote:

Not at all, but it's undoubtedly the main component. Every class has a specialty - Alchemist's is support and buff, whether people like it or not.

I'm not advocating for pure utility, but I see so many people outright ignoring that element and then complaining about feeling bad... It's jarring.

I don't really see alchemists as being very good at buffs either. They're pretty good at utility, with things like salamander elixirs, darkvision elixirs, or cheetah's elixir.

But if you were to ask me about an alchemical buff from fiction, the first one that comes to mind is the strength potion Getafix brews for Asterix and the other Gauls. And sure, something like that would be a problem to balance mechanically. But I don't see anything the alchemist offers that's anywhere close to being that good.

Another big problem with the alchemist is that after about level 4, they pretty much stop getting new things. Almost all level 5+ elixirs and bombs are just slightly stronger versions of the baseline ones. For example, you have Cheetah's elixir, which starts as +5 ft speed for 1 minute, progresses to +10 ft speed for 10 minutes, and ends up at +10 ft speed for 1 hour as a 9th level elixir (the equivalent of a mighty 1st level spell!). Darkvision elixir just gives you an increasing duration.

Meanwhile, my sorcerer has gotten abilities that increasingly alter the nature of any encounter: Faerie Fire to break invisibility, Slow and Earthbind to deal with bosses, Fly for general awesomeness, Animal Form and Elemental Form for turning into a melee combatant with great movement abilities, Freedom of Movement to deal with paralysis and other such abilities, and Wall of Stone for defense. Looking at just my offensive abilities, those have gone from Burning Hands (close combat, small AOE), to Fireball (ridiculous range, decent AOE), to Hydrualic Torrent (line with a push effect, targets different save), to Cone of Cold (bigger damage, ginormous AOE). These are all things that drastically alter the way I and my party approach combat. The party alchemist, meanwhile, keeps throwing the same bombs. Her persistent damage does a lot of work, particularly since the rest of the party isn't super damage-heavy and she has taken to using both blight bombs, acid flasks, and alchemist's fire, but her approach to combat is pretty much the same as it has been ever since she rebuilt to have a mount animal companion that's also pretty decent in combat: start by lobbing bombs to get some persistent damage going, ride in, maybe have the mount attack, and get chopping with the "poisoned" dogslicer (I put "poisoned" in quotes, because she's been really unlucky with the saves against the poison).