| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude says it's silly to play an alchemist in Gauntlight but also that I shouldn't be able to hit my allies with splash. If you know enough about Gauntlight to say I shouldn't play alchemist, you'd know that I was level one at the time this occured and therefore unable to prevent splash.
You also seem to have no idea what a Skill Monkey is. Alchemists can be pretty good at skills sometimes. A rogue is like 50% skill, and focuses a significant portion of their class development on skills, as part of their design. Hell, an investigator is a better skill monkey than an alchemist.
You really can't tie in min-maxing ancestry feats into a character as proof they are a skill monkey. Like what? That has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Saying 'dont play this class in an adventure path' is... Really just damning to the class as a whole. You can't say 'the class works' and then 'dont play it in a published adventure' because... If it doesn't work in published content, it doesn't work as a class.
I rolled up the same character as an investigator for kicks and it's hilarious at just how BETTER he is. Still gets the alchemy, still gets the crafting, gets MORE skill feats for crafting, doesn't need to focus on bombs and can spend all their alchemy on elixirs and poisons while actually being a capable character in combat AND RP...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was level one at the time this occured and therefore unable to prevent splash.
But that's literally the 1st level ability of the bomber research field...?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the Alchemist doubters are still out in force crying that they aren't top of the game in any specific field (you know, other than overall versatility) saying they're just plain bad.
I don't think it's unexpected that people want a class be stand out as being good at a niche. I'm also not sure it even stands out in versatility: it's FAR from the only way to get free alchemy items and other classes have a far better base to build off of.
Darn purists insisting that the only way to be "Viable" is to be "Optimal."
Is it strange to ask why play this class over another? When you land on the niche/type of build you want, does alchemist stand out as the class you want for it? I can't say it is for any I've done and I've tried over and over again to make the alchemist work as it was a favorite of mine in PF1.
Secondly, "Viable" requires that the people in the debate agree with what that means and I don't see that happening which is why it's easier to talk about optimal as that's easier to agree on. For instance, a viable character in a low combat high RP game can be very different from a high combat low RP game which is different from a high skill use mystery type game. Another example is the blowgun: in the right game, it might be a viable main weapon but on the average game is it?
What a shame.
I agree but I don't think we agree on what's a shame. ;)
I was level one at the time this occured and therefore unable to prevent splash.But that's literally the 1st level ability of the bomber research field...?
You're right, that's both mine and the DMs fault for misreading.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist can be quite good at skills, on par with Rogues or Investigators. They are less specialized but can have a crazy breadth of skills with high bonuses.
I’m going to have to ask for clarification on this, because I’m not seeing off hand how Alchemist’s 4+Int trained skills with increase every odd level starting at 3, and skill feats every even level is going to be “on par with a Rogue,” who gets a minimum of 8+Int trained skills, skill increases every level starting at 2 and skill feats every level. Even if the Alchemist starts at Int 18 and the Rogue at Int 10, which seems reasonably likely, the Rogue has a strong potential to outpace the Alchemist in the skill department from level 2 on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist can be quite good at skills, on par with Rogues or Investigators. They are less specialized but can have a crazy breadth of skills with high bonuses.I’m going to have to ask for clarification on this, because I’m not seeing off hand how Alchemist’s 4+Int trained skills with increase every odd level starting at 3, and skill feats every even level is going to be “on par with a Rogue,” who gets a minimum of 8+Int trained skills, skill increases every level starting at 2 and skill feats every level. Even if the Alchemist starts at Int 18 and the Rogue at Int 10, which seems reasonably likely, the Rogue has a strong potential to outpace the Alchemist in the skill department from level 2 on.
Yeah, I'm scratching my head too. Seems like one time his alchemist beat a rogue in a skill by a point or 2 so that equated to it being a skill monkey... I don't get it either.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even the most basic of rogues have a +9 prof, +4 dex, +1 thieves tools at that level for a +14So, they are worse than my Alchemist. That's why my Alchemist is disarming traps. Most Rogues won't get to + 15 in Thievery at level 5.
Even if we treat the alchemical item as somehow exclusive to the Achemist, which it decidedly isn’t, why do you seem to think that the Rogue can’t take Ageless Patience just as easily as can the Alchemist?
Most Alchemists don’t get +15 in Thievery at level 5, either, by the way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 16 skills total excluding Lore. If we assume a four-man party where the three other characters specialize in two skills each, that leaves 10 skills for the Rogue / Alchemist to cover. The Rogue can't specialize in all 10 skills, and if we compare a rogue's trained skill with no item bonus vs an alchemist's trained skill with a mutagen item bonus, the alchemist's bonus is higher.
The difference is that the rogue can be trained in every skill at 1st if they wish. Add to that that getting that mutagen bonus to "all 10 skills" requires multiple/different ones to quickly eats though your elixir budget just to attempt to keep close to the rogue's off skills. I mean, if it's JUST the mutagens the investigators can get them AND have more skills trained AND more skill feats...
Or, the alchemist could have off the mutagen to a true skill monkey for better use and not try to pretend to be one. [though with the penalties, they may not want it] ;)
Or, the alchemist could have off the mutagen to a true skill monkey for better use and not try to pretend to be one. [though with the penalties, they may not want it] ;)That would be the wisest choice in terms of min max, but not a mandatory one.
Fortunately, unless checks which requires a specific skill rank ( most of which hazards/traps related ), this system allows even a trained character with balanced stats ( and some equipment ) to shine in any situation.
Even without considering the +2/3/4 bonus given from a Aid action.
I don't disagree. My disagreement is that the alchemist is a skill monkey or that a mutagen suddenly make a class one.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a factor unspoken in all this nonsense about the alleged Skill Monkey Alchemist and the one Quicksilver Mutagen he’s ever going to need because who ever needs to make Thievery checks more than 10 minutes apart?
It is that a Rogue can take the Alchemist Multiclass Dedication at level 2 and use one of her daily infused reagents to create two Quicksilver mutagens. I guess she’ll just throw one away each day, because what are the odds of needing to make Thievery checks in two distinct 10 minute increments of time, but still . . .
I’ve not looked deeply at this question, but the Alchemist Multiclass Archetype, combined with a class that can benefit from a little alchemy, on the surface looks cooler than the Alchemist class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm specifically talking about levels 3 and on, where a skill's magnitude is determined by further skill increases for rogues.
I'm not sure how that matters: that just means the rogue can have every skill at trained, expert in 2 others and at least 3 skill feats.
When you do class comparisons, you compare the two classes (alchemist and rogue), not some other third class.
When comparing skill monkeys to non-skill monkeys, again I'm not sure it matters: even if we do stay rogue, they can get mutagens too with archetypes and can even get one such an archetype from a ancestry/heritage. IMO, it doesn't matter how you frame it or how broad/narrow you get, it's not good for the alchemist.
I’ve not looked deeply at this question, but the Alchemist Multiclass Archetype, combined with a class that can benefit from a little alchemy, on the surface looks cooler than the Alchemist class.
Oh, it is. If you want the versatility of alchemy items but want an actually good framework to put it on, just about any class with the archetype looks better than the actual class IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to barge in the discussion between Alchemist vs Rogue skill prowess, but I think this discussion should be laid to rest because it's meaningless. The Rogue was designed to be the best skill monkey in the game and have the single most stacked chassis of all classes, comparing the Rogue's main strength to the all-rounder that is the Alchemist is beyond meaningless.
I find it's sufficient to say that with enough effort the Alchemist can serve as a skill monkey due to its innate ability of bumping the skills of their choice, something other classes can't do (It's also worth noticing that this isn't something that they particularly want to do either).
Regardless, as we everything having to do with the Alchemist, we always come back to the same argument (and the biggest problem in my eyes), why isn't the alchemist giving their items to better suited characters in the party? After all, if you're not dispensing your items, you're not performing your role as Craft Bot, doesn't matter if you're a melee mutagenist or a chirurgeon, you better give other people your damn items and just watch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, it doesn't matter how you frame it or how broad/narrow you get, it's not good for the alchemist.Then let's set a frame:
Comparison of off-skill modifier for one of the 10 skills not covered by the other party members at level 3 without an invested item bonus, only using class chassis. After all, archetypes are expensive.Edit: it should go without saying, but the comparison is between alchemist and rogue.
I'm not sure why the limitation on class only: the original premise an alchemist with Ageless Patience was better than a rogue without one... Second, I'm not sure what is "expensive": a free dedication is a heritage benefit... But sure, you want one of their trained skills vs a rogues trained? *shrug* OK, so for that narrow band they might win out if they use resources every 10 min. IMO, that's not really good as the alchemist has skills that aren't trained while the rogues could have them all trained so they might have some skills at +2 but they'll also have some at -3...
A witch has the same number of skills and can use Guidance without resources... Again, not looking good for the alchemist.
I find it's sufficient to say that with enough effort the Alchemist can serve as a skill monkey due to its innate ability of bumping the skills of their choice, something other classes can't do (It's also worth noticing that this isn't something that they particularly want to do either).
See, we can't just brush it off because I don't see how you can say they "can serve as a skill monkey." I also disagree that other classes can't bump skills: investigators, bards, anyone that can cast guidance, anyone that takes one of multiple archetypes and/or skill feats can do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My arguments are the refutation of this claim:
IMO, it doesn't matter how you frame it or how broad/narrow you get, it's not good for the alchemist.
I still stand by it: the alchemist at best can temporarily, maybe, get a point or two ahead in a skill or two while falling behind in the majority of skills... IMO, that's STILL bad for a skill monkey. They NEVER get the breadth of skills or skill feats a skill monkey should have and, like any non-skill monkey class, can focus on a few skills and have a good roll at them. The fact you can beat another class in a few select skills does not a skill monkey make nor is it proof of being good with skills in general.
Mutagens provide a different kind of bonus which stack with status. Spellcasters primarily give status bonuses which don't stack with one anther. If the 3 other party members doesn't have any access to status bonuses, then I agree that the fourth member being a spellcaster provides more skill benefit than an alchemist.
Multiple status bonuses and multiple item bonuses do not stack so it's pretty much the same situation: you can't add multiple spells nor multiple mutagens and/or tools. That's not to say having access to multiple instances aren't valuable: Aid is a valuable boost so a buff on someone aiding you can be a good use of that bonus that doesn't stack [and make a crit fail less likely].
Saying 'dont play this class in an adventure path' is... Really just damning to the class as a whole. You can't say 'the class works' and then 'dont play it in a published adventure' because... If it doesn't work in published content, it doesn't work as a class.
So, you are complaining because someone tells you you're right?
I still stand by it: the alchemist at best can temporarily, maybe, get a point or two ahead in a skill or two while falling behind in the majority of skills... IMO, that's STILL bad for a skill monkey.
Let's take an example. My level 5 Alchemist, if she has time and if the skill is important enough to use a Mutagen has this level in skills:
Acrobatics + 15
Arcana + 15
Athletics + 10
Crafting + 17
Various Lores at + 15 / + 17
Medicine + 17
Nature + 14
Occultism + 17
Religion + 14
Society + 17
Survival + 14
Thievery + 14
12 skills that a standard Rogue won't beat.
The real limitation is the fact that I need time (not much of a limitation when I'm out of combat as there are few of these skills that are time constrained) and a Mutagen (the real limitation, even if I play PFS so I don't have much reagent stress, but they just last for 10 minutes).
So, it's a special kind of skill monkey, it is nowhere close to the top of the notch in skill monkeyness, but considering that I've just payed 1 Ancestry feat to get that, I think I can consider it fine.
About handing Mutagens to other characters, it's not that easy. First, I play PFS and as such I can't know other characters. Also, Mutagens come with significant drawbacks, and an Alchemist can play around these drawbacks easily when you know about them (going bomber under Quicksilver, healer under Cognitive and Serene, I also have an Animal Companion so I can live with maluses when a melee Rogue would not necessarily love being under Quicksilver Mutagen at the start of a fight).
First of all:
How do you have "multiple" +17 on several skills? I can see 2 of them, 3 if you archetype into something like medic, but you have 5+
Expert for level 5 with Mutagen is 9+4+2+2= +17
Expert in Society, Crafting and Occultism (Skilled Human) + Chirurgeon + Additional Lores.
You keep repeating that you are a skill monkey because of Ancestral.
Anyone can pick that up. That's irrelevant for Class Comparison.
I'm not a skill monkey because of Ageless Patience, I'm a skill monkey because of Ageless Patience + Mutagens. Both features (one being a class feature) add up together for a +4 to all skills. With Ageless Patience alone, my scores are way lower and no more outside a standard Rogue's reach.
I can't see how those numbers can't be beat by a standard rogue.
You have a 5th level Rogue around you, A real one, not one that has been created especially for this comparison? If you do, just post his skills, and you'll see that there's no comparison between my Alchemist and this Rogue when we are in non-stressing situations.
So you rely on non Class options for the vast majority of your skills.
And one class option. And this class option is the one giving me the biggest bonus. I've posted my build as an actual example, what I say is that Ageless Patience is all you need to reach high skill levels in non time constrained situations. I've chosen to add more skill feats and options to it, but they don't impact my skill levels much (a +2 here and a +3 there and that's it).
And to top that you extremely limit your options to things like 1/day AND out of combat AND needing double time AND needing to be healed afterwards.
That is the valid limits of this strategy. Still, it's not once per day and there's no need to heal afterwards if I don't have time for that. It's just that I'll be under a random mutagen (for better and worse) for 10 minutes after using this strategy and that it costs me reagents (at higher levels, I should be able to use this strategy way more often than I do currently).
I completely agree about the limits of this strategy, these are valid critics. But the bonuses are extreme, so I think it's worth noting. Not all skill checks are secondary, sometimes you really need someone to succeed and this is the moment where my Alchemist steps forward.As a comparison I do have a real level 6 Investigator that simply blows you out the water in every sense skill wise.
In time constrained situations, I'm pretty sure it does. In situations where I want to use this strategy, I think I get higher skill bonuses despite being one level lower. Just post your skills levels, it'll be telling.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My level 5 Alchemist, if she has time and if the skill is important enough to use a Mutagen has this level in skills:
<Snip>
12 skills that a standard Rogue won't beat.
What does “if she has time have to do with it? Ageless Patience, which a Rogue can take just as easily as can an Alchemist. It’s irrelevant to the comparison because it’s not provided by the class.
I’m also curious how you’re coming up with each of those numbers,
What does “if she has time have to do with it? Ageless Patience, which a Rogue can take just as easily as can an Alchemist.
Theoretical builds always win. Just post a real build, one that is really played.
As I've said, my Alchemist is a competitive skill monkey against a normal Rogue, not a theoretical one.I’m also curious how you’re coming up with each of those numbers,
I've just taken the numbers from PathBuilder and copied them there after applying the +2 from Ageless Patience and +2 from Mutagens. I've explained to Shroudb the reasons for the few strange values in a post above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you have higher Int skills similarly how a witch/wizard has them as well, and lower Dex, wis, etc skills
There doesn't even need to be different stats: mastermind had the option for a key stat of int and has a reason to be good at all those recall info skills.
Myself, I'm still wondering why he's taking a non-standard alchemist to compare to a standard rogue: I wonder what his criteria IS for 'standard'.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theoretical builds always win. Just post a real build, one that is really played.
I don’t have a fifth level Rogue that has seen play lying around. I mostly GM, so I’m not sure I have a fifth level ANYTHING lying around that has actually seen play.
That said, it’s not all that theoretical to say that the Rogue class gives much more support for the skill monkey role than does the Alchemist. Your counter-example leans heavily on an Ancestry feat and a heritage, either of which is easily available to a Rogue.
I've just taken the numbers from PathBuilder and copied them there after applying the +2 from Ageless Patience and +2 from Mutagens. I've explained to Shroudb the reasons for the few strange values in a post above.
That actually raised another question. How did you get Skilled Human and Ageless Patience onto the same character at 5th level. One is a Human heritage and the other is an Elf Ancestry feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemists certainly need a lot of help, and I house rule them to work closer to my player's expectations any time someone wants to play one in my games.
They do have some pretty decent tools. Greater Cognitive Mutagens make them the best Loremasters in the game. Ad hoc adding a +1 over the best skill items in the games and adding trained proficiency puts them at the best bonus on any strange lore. Bravo's Brew grants the best save possible versus fear and the level 15 item even replicates the success to crit success, which is an extremely strong effect. Eagle Eye elixir is one better for a scouting character. Quicksilver Mutagen, for a character at range, is usually worth the drawbacks for the additional +1 over the accuracy cap.
The main problem alchemists have is their turn to turn output is very poor. Greater Energy Mutagens, if your GM allows them as an uncommon item, are very strong damage dealing options, but that option not coming in until level 11 is a huge problem even if they are allowed.
The core of the issue is that the alchemist doesn't follow the martial attack progression and only gets up to expert proficiency. Using Quicksilver, they end up 1 under a standard martial on their to hit, which is a huge problem when their offensive options are contingent on that roll. The alchemist needs a way to improve their accuracy on 1 attack each turn even if it takes an additional action. Archetyping Ranger to get Hunter's Aim is the most consistent way to do this, but getting an arcane casting archetype and a staff of divination for true strike is the way I take to get higher spike output. I think taking one of these two options is basically mandatory, which heavily restricts the build options for the alchemists. Feats that do something like True Strike or Hunter's Aim should instead be built into the class.
As a healer, the alchemist has a delivery problem. Not having access to ranged option is a huge downfall of the class. I work with my potential alchemist player to house rule in an option that fits in with their conception of ranged healing.
Mutagen drawbacks are too harsh. Getting +1 to a bonus over the baseline in 2 things for a fully itemized PC in exchange for a -2 under that baseline in 2 things is wrong. Instead, the drawbacks should match the advantages on a fully itemized PC evenly, which I house rule in my games.
Aside from all of the inherent problems with each of the alchemist specialties, alchemical items are designed poorly in my opinion. I think the least version of each item should have access to the kickers for the later level items. To do this, I think the concept of every item scaling to every level should go away since the items without the kickers are often just traps anyway. Instead, work should be done to balance the items based off their full effect with the kickers and offer them at an appropriate level. Further, not having more high level alchemical items with crazier effects makes the class feel boring. A lot more work needs to be done on the itemization side.
Beyond all of that, the alchemist should be given more novel options that they can execute that another character with the items handy can't execute.
Multiple status bonuses and multiple item bonuses do not stack so it's pretty much the same situation: you can't add multiple spells nor multiple mutagens and/or tools. That's not to say having access to multiple instances aren't valuable: Aid is a valuable boost so a buff on someone aiding you can be a good use of that bonus that doesn't stack [and make a crit fail less likely].It's not the same situation. Having two castings of heroism doesn't increase your skill modifier, but having one casting of heroism and one at-level mutagen does increase your skill modifier.
You never mentioned having both a caster AND an alchemist, just that multiple casters didn't stack so I commented on multiple castings. "If the 3 other party members doesn't have any access to status bonuses, then I agree that the fourth member being a spellcaster provides more skill benefit than an alchemist" NEVER mentions that one of the 3 is an alchemist and is providing mutagens: you just say mutagens and spells stack which is correct and something I never disagreed with. It just wasn't the scenario you'd presented and that I commented on [3 unknown players and a caster].
Valid build?
You do realize that most of your points are just plain wrong? There is only one point I can't disprove by just pointing out the rules or obvious things...
So, I think you don't want to have this conversation in good faith. As you may guess, I'm out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that most of your points are just plain wrong?
I have to say, I'm in agreement with his points: I haven't seen much of your 'proof' that what he said was wrong. I mean I quick stated up a mastermind rogue that has a minimum of trained in all skills + loremaster lore, can roll on every recall knowledge check as a free action with assurance [and maybe a lower DC as she counts as having every lore], has assurance in medicine and athletics, has trapfinder so can Search for traps while doing other things, has streetwise and survey wildlife to add more uses to recall knowledge... Your rogue is 8 points over my bonuses in those 12 skills and I'm around 56 over on the other 8 you have untrained... So... Yeah... Are you saying getting only around 48 less in proficiency bonuses in skills makes you a skill monkey?
So, I think you don't want to have this conversation in good faith.
That seems to apply more to you IMO. You're taking a clearly non-standard alchemist and trying to compare it to a 'standard' [whatever that is] rogue and you want to claim someone else is not acting in "good faith"?
I haven't seen much of your 'proof' that what he said was wrong.
Why would I do that?
Shroudb seems pissed and I'm pissed. So, the best thing to do is to just drop the conversation.
I haven't seen much of your 'proof' that what he said was wrong.Why would I do that?
Shroudb seems pissed and I'm pissed. So, the best thing to do is to just drop the conversation.tbh i'm not pissed ^^
it would take a lot more than a random argument in some forums to piss me.
i just dont see the point in continuing when the bar we set for what is a "skill focused build" and what's supposed to achieve and help with in a group is set so much different between the two of us.
Well, I may be less resistant to "random arguments in some forums".
But it's mostly the feeling of not being understood that I find really annoying. I don't care if people disagree with me. But far too often I end up in some trench warfare on points that are outside the debate.And when you imply that my Alchemist may be weak, you attack below the belt. You have no way to know that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's mostly the feeling of not being understood that I find really annoying.
I pointed out, multiple times I might add, that we needed a common understanding of things like what a "standard rogue" is but you never clarified that. People have pointed out that that your definition of "skill monkey" doesn't match theirs but you never clarify what yours is. People have been trying to see your point but they can't when they don't have a shared understanding of the terms you're using.
And when you imply that my Alchemist may be weak, you attack below the belt. You have no way to know that.
Why is it "below the belt" when they 100% honestly think it IS weak? I think it's weak because #1 it's an alchemist and right there you start off behind, #2 you focus all your resources in skills and lost in breadth, overall skill bonuses and skill feats to what I'd call a standard rogue build, #3 to get to the high numbers you have in a few skills, you have to take on crippling penalties, use resources and have to try to juggle different mutagens [if you try to deal with different skills in a short period of time and that's IF you've taken the feat to end your mutagens early] and you take double the time when you have a timer on how long your mutagens last.
So IMO, it's a weak looking at it as a skill monkey. It might play fine for you and do what you want: that's cool. I can just tell you, if I was looking to add a skill monkey to a party, I wouldn't be looking for an alchemist.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe with Alchemist is that they don't live up to their previous fantasy and breadth of options provided by archetypes from 1E(Even just APG only vs Core only) where as every other Class in 2E still does what it did in 1E.
In 1E alchemists were top tier damage dealers who also had versatility provided by extracts. The two most popular 1ae builds the mad bomber and hyde were respectively good ranged and melee damage dealers with other goodies on top.
If I had to move from 1e to 2e as a single class character I would be happy to do that with any class but the alchemist(I would be hesitant of certain wizards but that is a different argument).
A 2E alchemist is a mediocre support who is better off giving everything they do to the party member next to them who can't specialize in any 3 of its listed specialties because their proficiency bonuses and feat taxes put them behind. Also two of the specialties don't actually do anything and even with Errata mutagenist does barely anything.
Honestly why be an alchemist when 90% of what you can do can be copied by a skill feat.
All this is coming from someone who loved the 1e alchemist to death and also someone who really likes 2E over 1E.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly why be an alchemist when 90% of what you can do can be copied by a skill feat.
I honestly think that the way to build the most effective alchemist is to pick a class that already does what you’re looking to do, and take Alchemist MCD at second level.
Bomber? Fighter or maybe Ranger plus Alchemist MCD.
Jekyll/Hyde mutagenist? Probably still Fighter, but maybe Monk plus Alchemist MCD.
Chirurgeon? Investigator, maybe Rogue, with Alchemist MCD.
Poisoner? Rogue plus Alchemist MCD.
They’re not going to have as many alchemical items, but they’re going to be more effective characters over all.