Alchemists in Practice: What should I be doing?

[graystone]

Luke Styer wrote:

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.

I agree other than the 2nd level part: you can always take ancient elf and take the Alchemist MCD at 1st level. [the stats work too!] ;)

[Luke Styer]

graystone wrote:

Luke Styer wrote:

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.

I agree other than the 2nd level part: you can always take ancient elf and take the Alchemist MCD at 1st level. [the stats work too!] ;)

True, but the issue of not enough alchemical items is even worse at level 1, so I’m not totally sure it’s worth jumping in early. I guess if you have a second level class feat that you want, but I don’t think there’s even a second level feat in the archetype that you her early access to.

[graystone]

Luke Styer wrote:

graystone wrote:

Luke Styer wrote:

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.

I agree other than the 2nd level part: you can always take ancient elf and take the Alchemist MCD at 1st level. [the stats work too!] ;)

True, but the issue of not enough alchemical items is even worse at level 1, so I’m not totally sure it’s worth jumping in early. I guess if you have a second level class feat that you want, but I don’t think there’s even a second level feat in the archetype that you her early access to.

It's more about gaining a 2nd level class feat to use in your class. There are some really nice 1st or 2nd level feats you can snag AND get your dedication. ;)

[scoutmaster]

Interesting discussion - I just wanted to make myself an hobgoblin alchemist
what this character can do better than any other is to create a lot of smoke that does not bother him.:) Nobody makes more smoke than an alchemist:) And no one will identify items better than an alchemist thanks to Crafter's Appraisal (for an alchemist, this is the most natural choice)
The question is whether these 2 reasons are sufficient.
To write a little more seriously, I have the impression that the main weapon of the alchemists has been weakened too much. - I don't get the argument that the alchemist has to prepare a bomb to throw for someone else. Additionally, bombs are practically worse than in playtests:
it was easier to hit the target (TAC) and the alchemists deal bonus damage with bombs. There is even too much disproportion between bombs and magic cantrips these days.

[Exocist]

Poisoner will not work on another class. The DC of level-3 poisons is awful because they all target fort (i’m talking a 15% or less failure chance against on level creatures - alch is usually at 30-35%). Toxicologist has a niche in prepoisoning (and because poisons last indefinitely once applied, their perpetual does let them give a small buff to everyone’s weapons all the time if using ammunition).

What is the alchemist good for? Doing everything at the same time, they just kind of suck at all of it. But if you need a secondary for everything... alchemist might be good. But here’s the kicker. They’re only effective at level 7-9+. Before that, all research fields are too starved for reagents to do anything effectively, especially in APs. I would not recommend playing one in AV for that reason, you’ll spend more than half the AP being useless.

What else is alchemist good at? Long term buffing... but again, only at like level 11+ when their stuff actually becomes long term. AV ends before you get there, so it’s irrelevant.

[NemoNoName]

Play something else.

Investigator can be amazing implementation of Alchemist. And you can always MC into Alchemist if you really want some of the rest.

[HumbleGamer]

scoutmaster wrote:

Interesting discussion - I just wanted to make myself an hobgoblin alchemist

what this character can do better than any other is to create a lot of smoke that does not bother him.:) Nobody makes more smoke than an alchemist:) And no one will identify items better than an alchemist thanks to Crafter's Appraisal (for an alchemist, this is the most natural choice)
The question is whether these 2 reasons are sufficient.
To write a little more seriously, I have the impression that the main weapon of the alchemists has been weakened too much. - I don't get the argument that the alchemist has to prepare a bomb to throw for someone else. Additionally, bombs are practically worse than in playtests:
it was easier to hit the target (TAC) and the alchemists deal bonus damage with bombs. There is even too much disproportion between bombs and magic cantrips these days.

Imo, Toxicologist is the way.

You are not required to supply your own team, but it might be useful to share some of your alchemical stuff with them ( as any other spellcaster does with their support/healing and even debuff spells, which doesn't deal physical harm to an enemy, but allow the party to better deal with him ).

Due to how poison works, you are able to plan in advance ( coating either weapons and ammunitions ), to enhance your combat style.

You will be more or less 2 points behind a combatant ( providing ranged attack / finesse weapons and quicksilver mutagen ), but note that it's not that much if you consider the damage you will deal with a single attack.

Consider also that you will be also able to make a good use of perpetual poisons ( 1 action to create, 1 to apply, 1 to strike ), if you want to save up high lvl poisons.

The fact you can apply poisons with just 1 interact action is excellent, and the fact you apply your alchemist DC to all poison DC ( if higher ) makes even the lvl 1 poisons viable in different situations.

You will suffer from enemies with poison immunity, but overall it's way better and more efficient than bein tied to bombs, which deals not enough damage if compared to any magic weapon.

[Alchemic_Genius]

I play my alchemist as a supporter and it's pretty effective.

My party actually started to shop around the fact that I can supply mutagens, so instead of focusing on skill boosters, they buy more odd, cool stuff. It also stacks with the with both our swashbuckler's one for all and the witch's status bonuses, so it's always fun to see the massive stacking.

The martials and rogue also really like the lightning bomb, and the casters and rogue also adore when I toss dread ampoules.

Out of combat, I was able to make myself a pretty competent social character; the swashbuckler does the diplomacy stuff, I handle the lying and disguise stuff. The rogue is a Ruffian/Bastion, so they handle the intimidate side of things.

Most of my actual damage comes from multiclassing into witch and shocking people electric arc

[Virellius]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

I play my alchemist as a supporter and it's pretty effective.

My party actually started to shop around the fact that I can supply mutagens, so instead of focusing on skill boosters, they buy more odd, cool stuff. It also stacks with the with both our swashbuckler's one for all and the witch's status bonuses, so it's always fun to see the massive stacking.

The martials and rogue also really like the lightning bomb, and the casters and rogue also adore when I toss dread ampoules.

Out of combat, I was able to make myself a pretty competent social character; the swashbuckler does the diplomacy stuff, I handle the lying and disguise stuff. The rogue is a Ruffian/Bastion, so they handle the intimidate side of things.

Most of my actual damage comes from multiclassing into witch and shocking people electric arc

How are you reliably hitting with these bombs? I retrained into Investigator because after two floors of Gauntlight, I missed like 75% of my throws with a 16 dex. It's abyssmal!

[HumbleGamer]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

I play my alchemist as a supporter and it's pretty effective.

At first I was like "aaaahh"

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Most of my actual damage comes from multiclassing into witch and shocking people electric arc

But then I was like "ah"

[Alchemic_Genius]

Virellius wrote:

How are you reliably hitting with these bombs? I retrained into Investigator because after two floors of Gauntlight, I missed like 75% of my throws with a 16 dex. It's abyssmal!

I actually land most of my thows, probably a good 80% at least. Most of the time I either hide or use Make a Diversion to inflict flat footed and toss. The quicksilver mutagen also helps quite a bit.

I can't say I would recommend a bomb centric fighting style though. You'll rarely hit the second throw, so I favor a bomb into a save cantrip for a pure damaging round. I am playing a bomber, but mostly because the debuffs actually really do act like a force multiplier for the rest of the party, and I dont want to splash my teammates.

Most of my contributions have been the fact that I'm a bit of a swiss army knife, support wise, and finding odd ways to stack my item bonuses with the witch's status bonuses. For me, it's a fun role, but it's definately not the explody chemist we knew in 1e

[Alchemic_Genius]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

I play my alchemist as a supporter and it's pretty effective.

At first I was like "aaaahh"

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Most of my actual damage comes from multiclassing into witch and shocking people electric arc

But then I was like "ah"

Yeah, I'm gonna see if directed splash helps, but since most of my allies are melee, I frequently have to use the "friendly fire" mode, which sucks because I dont have the AoE damage that makes a missed bomb actually okay, so cantrips have been more reliable for damage.

That said, my alchemy has been extremely useful out of combat. My party makes regular use of mutagens, and infiltrator's elixir allowed us to take the espionage route much easier. A trick of our party is having the rogue or swashbuckler use the silvertongue mutage to boost info gathering spcial skills while the investigator acts as a fact checker, possibly using the cognative mutagen themselves. I'm good deception and thievery, so I also use infoltrator's elixir or silvertongue to get the party into places we oughtn't be.

Like, I feel my character requires a lot of clever thinking to be good, but when I'm on my game as a player, I actually am really good

[scoutmaster]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Imo, Toxicologist is the way.
You are not required to supply your own team, but it might be useful to share some of your alchemical stuff with them ( as any other spellcaster does with their support/healing and even debuff spells, which doesn't deal physical harm to an enemy, but allow the party to better deal with him ).

Due to how poison works, you are able to plan in advance ( coating either weapons and ammunitions ), to enhance your combat style.

You will be more or less 2 points behind a combatant ( providing ranged attack / finesse weapons and quicksilver mutagen ), but note that it's not that much if you consider the damage you will deal with a single attack.

Consider also that you will be also able to make a good use of perpetual poisons ( 1 action to create, 1 to apply, 1 to strike ), if you want to save up high lvl poisons.

The fact you can apply poisons with just 1 interact action is excellent, and the fact you apply your alchemist DC to all poison DC ( if higher ) makes even the lvl 1 poisons viable in different situations.

You will suffer from enemies with poison immunity, but overall...

I have the following problems with the toxicologist:

1) the poison doesn't affect many creatures, and if it does, there's a save anyway
2) warriors in your party will hit the opponent better with your poison anyway
3) even if the poison would work for several rounds, the opponent is already dead.

[Alchemic_Genius]

scoutmaster wrote:

I have the following problems with the toxicologist:
1) the poison doesn't affect many creatures, and if it does, there's a save anyway
2) warriors in your party will hit the opponent better with your poison anyway
3) even if the poison would work for several rounds, the opponent is already dead.

Toxicologist is interesting in that they can add a orebattle buff to the whole party's weapons for an incredible action economy boost.

That said, I'm not sure I'm sold on it. The "fighter is better at it than you" argument is kind of a wash imo, since this is also true of the mutagenist's unsrmed attacks and bomber's bombs. The alchemist is solidly a support class, and theres no two ways around it; it's like telling the cleric their heroism works better on their allies than themselves.

With my experience as an alchemist though, I found bombs to be just as good at status conditions; better once debilitating bombs come into play; as poisions, and their damage over time also compares favorably, since they are usually less likely to pass the flat check then the poison save.

Imo, bomber and mutagenist are the best fields are the best, depending if you want to be okay in combat or be better at support. The bomber won't be any in combat proficiency wise, but you'll have more bombs to throw, and perpetuals are the best way to use additives, and mutagenists get some legitimately nice benefits for mutagens.

[scoutmaster]

when I think about it, I find that the toxicologist has such an advantage over a bomber that he needs fewer feats than a bomber, therefore he is better suited for taking archetypes.

[shroudb]

scoutmaster wrote:

when I think about it, I find that the toxicologist has such an advantage over a bomber that he needs fewer feats than a bomber, therefore he is better suited for taking archetypes.

that's because the majority of poison related feats, with the notable exception of pinpoint poisoner, are straight up bad.

not having good class feats so being forced to take archetype feats in their place is not a good thing in general.

[Themetricsystem]

Not having Class Feats that effectively or dramatically increase your DPR /=/ The Class has no good Feats

I would surely like it if people stopped trying to measure Alchemist against things it isn't meant to do. Trying to reasonably compare a utility, skills, and support class against their martial contemporaries in terms of what their peers do best is absolutely going to make the Alchemist look bad but that is like bringing a work-horse to the Kentucky Derby, they're just NOT built the same and don't fill the same role.

"Apples are terrible and should be fixed because they don't have as many calories as a chocolate cake, designers please fix!"

[graystone]

Themetricsystem wrote:

I would surely like it if people stopped trying to measure Alchemist against things it isn't meant to do. Trying to reasonably compare a utility, skills, and support class against their martial contemporaries in terms of what their peers do best is absolutely going to make the Alchemist look bad but that is like bringing a work-horse to the Kentucky Derby, they're just NOT built the same and don't fill the same role.

The problem with that is that people AREN'T really comparing apples to oranges. People are comparing an alchemist built for attacking [bomber] vs other classes built for combat, or utility/buffs [mutagens] vs classes built for that.

As to the post you seem to be replying to, I don't see what you say refuting that there aren't a lot of poison focused feats, how good/bad they are, how exciting they might be or how many feats each Research Field has that specifically relates to it.

[shroudb]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Not having Class Feats that effectively or dramatically increase your DPR /=/ The Class has no good Feats

I would surely like it if people stopped trying to measure Alchemist against things it isn't meant to do. Trying to reasonably compare a utility, skills, and support class against their martial contemporaries in terms of what their peers do best is absolutely going to make the Alchemist look bad but that is like bringing a work-horse to the Kentucky Derby, they're just NOT built the same and don't fill the same role.

"Apples are terrible and should be fixed because they don't have as many calories as a chocolate cake, designers please fix!"

congrats on saying something completely irrelevant to my quoted post.

i havent mentioned anything about dpr.

the poison related feats (apart from pinpoint) are legit bad because they are so incredibly niche to be of any use, utility, dpr, whatever, wise.

take as an example tenacious toxins

it makes 6round poisons into 7 rounds one. that means you spent a feat so that if something is poisoned for 6 straight rounds it's poisoned for 1 extra.

i have never in my experience seen anything survive 6 straight up rounds of poisoning, and you pay a midlevel feat for that.

take the early options of using the amazing blowgun, which adds 0 utility, 0 dpr, and generally does nothing excpet making you use an usuable weapon.

want high level feats?
if you hit, and the enemy crit fails, and is adjustent to another enemy, you can spent a reaction, and if the other enemy also fails a save, that reaction did something!

that's 4 ifs that include critical fails to even do anything. for an endgame feat.

and etc.

they could have good poison feats that arent dpr related, some utility feats maybe, instead we have feats that do nothing.

[WWHsmackdown]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Not having Class Feats that effectively or dramatically increase your DPR /=/ The Class has no good Feats

I would surely like it if people stopped trying to measure Alchemist against things it isn't meant to do. Trying to reasonably compare a utility, skills, and support class against their martial contemporaries in terms of what their peers do best is absolutely going to make the Alchemist look bad but that is like bringing a work-horse to the Kentucky Derby, they're just NOT built the same and don't fill the same role.

"Apples are terrible and should be fixed because they don't have as many calories as a chocolate cake, designers please fix!"

I agree with you but would also like to point out that the alchemist exists in a system where it stands completely alone as a "true" support class. Even a cloistered cleric can fall back on full caster progression blasting if he doesn't full like aiding others in their spotlight. The alchemist lives alone in a game full of combat characters so it's hard not to compare him to such. I completely understand the disappointment some feel in this regard. They wanna act in a way every other class has the privilege to act as

[Lightning Raven]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Not having Class Feats that effectively or dramatically increase your DPR /=/ The Class has no good Feats

I would surely like it if people stopped trying to measure Alchemist against things it isn't meant to do. Trying to reasonably compare a utility, skills, and support class against their martial contemporaries in terms of what their peers do best is absolutely going to make the Alchemist look bad but that is like bringing a work-horse to the Kentucky Derby, they're just NOT built the same and don't fill the same role.

"Apples are terrible and should be fixed because they don't have as many calories as a chocolate cake, designers please fix!"

Most of alchemists feats either are taxes, feel like taxes or aren't interesting enough.

Regardless, I think the core issue is something that will never be changed, which is the simple fact that Alchemists are only crafters and they don't offer anything truly unique, they just offer for free items that players wouldn't want to buy anyway (the cost/benefit ratio is unfavorable, disregarding the action economy cost). If they had a feature enhancing alchemical items instead of Quick Alchemy, it would've been so, so, so much better.

The more I think about it, the less I like quick alchemy, if I'm gonna be honest. Keep in mind that I fully understand it's main strength... It just doesn't translate well into gameplay, since it's too cost intensive, taxing on your action economy and because of these constraints, any alchemists that is bound to face a lot of encounters will spend the larger part of its reagents in Advanced Alchemy over leaving them open for a Quick Alchemy.

That's just my two cents on the matter, I know any big changes are met with heavy resistance and suspicion, but I find that the prepared playstyle would suit the alchemist much better than the illusory versatility that Quick Alchemy grants. Yes, you have the option to craft anything you want, but when there are lots of limitations on it, it significantly loses its strength. It is falls under the same fallacy of the "theoretical wizard", the one that always have the right spell prepared and with a loaded grimoire.

[Quandary]

Lightning Raven wrote:

The more I think about it, the less I like quick alchemy, if I'm gonna be honest. Keep in mind that I fully understand it's main strength... It just doesn't translate well into gameplay, since it's too cost intensive, taxing on your action economy and because of these constraints, any alchemists that is bound to face a lot of encounters will spend the larger part of its reagents in Advanced Alchemy over leaving them open for a Quick Alchemy.

Honestly, I find this a weird take. Sure, it makes sense to use most reagents on prepared Advanced Alchemy (especially early on), but that doesn't negate Quick Alchemy... Any more than a caster having ability to spontaneously substitute a minority of their slots is negated if it doesn't apply to all slots. Of course there isn't a realistic advantage in having EVERY slot/usage being spontaneous, it's plausible that some usages can be predicted as generally viable, so committing to those isn't any loss. It doesn't seem a surprise to negatively judge the class when you ignore the fundamental dynamic it offers: Besides Alchemy not being subject to thematic limitations of magical essences, they also get to play the prepared vs spontaneous dichotomy from both sides: Getting volume advantage w/ prepared, and tactical flexibility of spontaneous (from full formula book, not more limited spell reportoire).

Not re: you in particular, but I also notice the implications of latest Errata being ignored or pigeon-holed, like Medium Armor being understood as only relevant to STR-Mutagenists and not DEX builds. Maybe that is the case immediately at low levels, but once Fortification is in play, everybody should want to wear it that can, including DEX Bombers etc. And abou

Overall I see them being subject to the curse of the jack of all trades, which nobody (or few) appreciate. Ironic in a way, because P2E has generally restrained class' hyper-optimization in one direction in favor of everybody being more generalist, but still the Alchemist going furthest away from role optimization doesn't yield satisfying result for many... Which is honestly very much a manner of expectations and psychology, if it's "niche" as "anti-niche" jack-of-all-trades breaking the bounds of spont/prep/thematic limits aren't really hidden. But (alot of) people want their vehicle for power fantasy to be apex powerful in clear way, and can't even understand that as one particular desire because it's so ingrained in their paradigm of the game.

[Quandary]

Pragmatically, I think the prospect of future feats and options (alchemy items as well as research fields, albeit the latter not relevant to existing fields) does offer opportunity for improvement, even if it still may not satisfy everybody... Which should be fine, since insisting every option be attractive to every taste seems a formula for a very boring game.

I'm actually most interested in how the upcoming Inventor and Gunslinger classes relate to Alchemist, particularly since I never really saw the case for them being distinct classes from Alchemist in the first place: Gunslinger I don't see rationale for at all, as in setting where guns are radical and extraordinary, having their apex usage being tied to somebody who crafts them and their ammunition (i.e. Alchemist or Inventor) seems totally reasonable and the Gunslinger "trope" doesn't seem necessary or what I would imagine if told guns existed in Golarion setting. Alchemist and Inventor seem subsets of same 'inventor/crafter' formula, and I had always proposed "Tinker" or "Gadgeteer" (explicitly envisioning "companions" and "mecha-armor/weapon augments") as Research Fields and areas of content that could be integrated in Alchemist. And within a generally low-tech (but crypto-magical) setting, I just don't see the rationale in so tightly policing the border between these types of "tech", when heroically "genius" tech-crafters seem liable to be "renaissance" polymaths.

Now Paizo seems dedicated to those as separate classes, but I still imagine there are ways to utilize that material in a way to improve Alchemists. New options to use alchemical reagents to create effects of Inventor, or Gunslinger... The thematic coherence of Guns/Bombs being an obvious one to me, and while low-proficiency chassis isn't "optimal" for Guns, they can be made to work if augmented with Alchemical reagents or other abilities. Of course, an Alchemist with Multiclass Dedication: Inventor or Gunslinger (or non-Multiclass Archetypes focused on those areas) would/should be possible, but I think it's justified to offer "native" options for the Alchemist in those areas without worrying about Archetypes. From general Alchemy formula, Feats, and Research Fields... So allowing to help any and all existing Research Fields and builds, but also offering ones specifically focusing on Alchemy/Inventor fusion, so to speak. In terms of the lowest common denominator, it seems reasonable to allow Item bonuses via those approaches which could ameliorate some concerns in that areas, while "eating into" reagents/feats in a way that is balanced vs. other possible Alchemist builds. Gunslinger and Inventor could still have own niche, but Alchemist could also be a 3rd way to engage with much of the same themes (and even offer its own unique embellishments of gun/tinkertech).

[Lightning Raven]

Quandary wrote:

Overall I see them being subject to the curse of the jack of all trades, which nobody (or few) appreciate. Ironic in a way, because P2E has generally restrained class' hyper-optimization in one direction in favor of everybody being more generalist, but still the Alchemist going furthest away from role optimization doesn't yield satisfying result for many... Which is honestly very much a manner of expectations and psychology, if it's "niche" as "anti-niche" jack-of-all-trades breaking the bounds of spont/prep/thematic limits aren't really hidden. But (alot of) people want their vehicle for power fantasy to be apex powerful in clear way, and can't even understand that as one particular desire because it's so ingrained in their paradigm of the game.

Eh. If only the issue was just because they aren't as strong as other classes, which they clearly are. The thing is that there are a lot of problematic issue with the class that basically hinders it playing anything but an item dispenser, everything else feels lackluster not because it isn't hitting DPR benchmarks, it's because it's not accomplishing their themes effectively, both on the power aspect and the fun aspect, the class has hoops it needs to jump through in order to simply catch up and even when you do, you're still going to be struggling. I just want the class to be treated like the others. It is for a good reason that the Alchemist issue pops up frequently, either brought up by veterans or newcomers, the trend is there. The things that had to be changed gives any attentive person that the class wasn't shipped on it's best version (the existence of so many feat taxes and lack of fun feats should've been addressed by now, but I find it unlikely).

[Luke Styer]

Quandary wrote:

Any more than a caster having ability to spontaneously substitute a minority of their slots is negated if it doesn't apply to all slots.

Eating an action per use plus getting only half or a third the items out of the reagent with Quick Alchemy stings. It’s not terrible, but on an already marginal class I get why people are unimpressed.

[HumbleGamer]

Poison related feats are not bad imo.

Sticky toxines help you with action management, even if it's RNG.

PinPoint poisoner is too good ( -2 circ on saves against your poisons ).

Shaped contaminant is really nice in terms of tactical combat.
Not only allows you to get a +3 status with inhaled poisons, but also allows you to shape them into a line instead of a cube.

Chemical Contagion is also good ( since the alchemist has no reactions unless taking some dedication ), increasing your damage or poison effects.

The problem with the alchemist is, imo, that the only viable build for solo is the toxicologist. The other 3 research fields are indeed good, but shines if used to support other party members.

If you are ok being some sort of elixir dispenser, then there's no issue. But if you want to use them for yourself, then you will do it knowing that it won't be the most efficient choice.

And to be really honest, it would be far from being average.

But since the game is not about min max, and any party ( provided a good master ) is going to have a fair chance of success, regards its composition.

[shroudb]

Imo sticky is too low a chance to be reliable. 20% chance is not something great. It's like current Unstable that no one likes the chances...

Chemical contagion is terrible. It requires the stars to align so much that it may do something only once in your whole career. (literally 4 IFs including critical failures: you need to hit. Enemy needs to crit fail the save. Enemy needs to be adjustent to another. The other enemy also needs to fail the save).

Subtle is terrible.

Tenacious is terrible.

Shaped is nice, as is pinpoint.

That's 2 good poison feats out of 6.

Even if we count sticky as "ok" that's still 3 terrible feats for 2 good and 1 OK.

That's not a good ratio...

[HumbleGamer]

Yeah, subtle and tenacious are really bad.

Potent poison might be good sometimes to gain a +1 DC, but given how few feats characters have, I wouldn't invest into something like that.

Anyway, it's quite clear that the alchemist is the class that mostly benefits from either dedications and ancestries.

As a matter of fact, players make a good use of them.

Knowing this, I think it should be really taken into account ( it might be considered unfair, yeah, but since things are this way, it's only obvious to take it into account and deal with it ).

For example, I think players might find really enjoyable this character.

Ratfolk ( sewer rat ) alchemist ( toxicologist ) with ranger dedication.

Weapons: Hand crossbow and dagger.

Mandatory Ancestry Feats ( Check pouch + Quick stow )
Optional Ancestry Feats ( Rat Familiar, in order to get 1 extra infused reagent )

Mandatory Class Feats ( Ranger dedication + Running Reload + Healing Bomb ).

Skills: Medicine ( battle medicine )+ Intimidate + Athletics ( primary skill )

...

How does it work

Preps: During daily preparations you will create a load of injury poison, whom with you will coat your darts. You will also make some quicksilver elixirs and leave some infused reagents to trigger healing bombs.

Some rotations:

Round 1: Interact ( you will drink the quicksilver mutagen you stowed in your mouth ), Release ( free action, release the empty bottle ) + Hand Crossbow Strike ( poisoned bolt ) + running reload ( poisoned bold )

Round 2: Intimidate + Strike ( dagger ) + Strike ( dagger )

Round 3: Quickstow ( dagger ) + Interact draw ( inhaled poison ) + interact use ( inhaled poison ) + Quickdraw ( dagger strike ).

Round 4: Strike ( dagger ) + Quick stow ( dagger ) + Quick alchemy/healing bomb + tpss healing bomb ( you just need a failure, so it would be automatic ).

Round 5: hand crossbow strike ( poisoned bolt ) + Running reload ( poisoned bolt ) + Assurance ( athletics )

Round 6: Intimidate + Quickdraw ( dagger strike ) + Battle medicine.

and so on.

Godless healing might help supporting yourself, but wouldn't be mandatory.

Medic dedication might come handy too because of doctor visitation and more battle medicine ( but this might require human adopted ancestry and natural ambition lvl 9, swapping medic dedication with hunter dedication ).

But possibilities are infinity.
Just wanted to underline that given the current situation its an alchemist feature to excel with dedication ( while other classes might be slightly enhanced ).

...

I see now that quick draw is a better quick bomb since it works with any weapon ( bombs included).

[MEATSHED]

That rotation isn't that great and would probably get you killed in actual play, with quicksilver you are at the same health pool as a wizard and it involves you being in melee and provoking reactions 3 times. You shouldn't even have a rotation as alchemist, just do whatever you need to do at the moment.

[HumbleGamer]

No need to have a rotation with any class to be honest, and I am sorry to say that you missed what was my point

In other words, to provide hints in terms of gameplay, and toxicologist is perfect either with or without ancestry or dedications ( I just mentioned my ratfolk because it amused me).

All of this leaving apart enemies with reactions, which are far from being that common as you tried to imply, as well as mandatory rotations.

This 2e offers a system with 3 action and 1 reaction, which can be improved, or simply modified, depends your ideas. Alchemist is no different from any other classes in terms of freedom, but benefit more than anybody else from dedications.

[scoutmaster]

since we're talking about poisons, how to use injury poison during a fight? It requires 2 hands to use - so applying poison to an arrow or crossbow bolt or even a sword is very difficult during an encoutner.

Moreover, comparing the poison to a bomb - if you miss with a bow, you have nothing - the bomb will deal at least a minimal damage

[HumbleGamer]

scoutmaster wrote:

since we're talking about poisons, how to use injury poison during a fight? It requires 2 hands to use - so applying poison to an arrow or crossbow bolt or even a sword is very difficult during an encoutner.

Moreover, comparing the poison to a bomb - if you miss with a bow, you have nothing - the bomb will deal at least a minimal damage

About poisons:

1) you can coat your weapons ( arrows or daggers or any other weapon ) whenever you want, and they remain poisoned until your next daily preparations.

2) quicksilver mutagen or doubling ring can help you dealing with coated melee weapons ( just drop the dagger and extract another one. quickdraw might be your best ally here, but still it's from a dedication ).

3) Toxicologist is specialized in poisons. Your class dc is going to be your poison dc regardless the poison level. Also, you need just 1 action to coat your weapon/ammunition. So even with perpetual poisons would be

1 action to create 1 perpetual poison
1 action to apply it
1 action to strike.

Eventually, you might consider taking "enduring alchemy", but imo it's not that worth the investement.

[voideternal]

scoutmaster wrote:

since we're talking about poisons, how to use injury poison during a fight? It requires 2 hands to use - so applying poison to an arrow or crossbow bolt or even a sword is very difficult during an encoutner.

You apply it before combat, possibly at start of day.

[scoutmaster]

before the fight - no problem. But there is a problem in the fight.
The poison is applied using two hands - with a one-handed weapon it will work somehow - but a bow and arrows or a two-handed weapon?
You have to hold the bow in one hand and that hand is no longer free - the toxicologist can't get around this rule - unless I'm wrong.

[MEATSHED]

HumbleGamer wrote:

No need to have a rotation with any class to be honest, and I am sorry to say that you missed what was my point

In other words, to provide hints in terms of gameplay, and toxicologist is perfect either with or without ancestry or dedications ( I just mentioned my ratfolk because it amused me).

If you think it perfect without ancestries or dedications that is fine but you didn't show that at all. Your example seems heavily reliant on you ancestry and dedication given that the only alchemist feat you used was healing bomb while it needs quick draw, running reload and quick stow to function based on what you made. In fact there is exactly one turn in your example were you don't use any of those

Quote:

All of this leaving apart enemies with reactions, which are far from being that common as you tried to imply

You are still in melee with a wizards health pool, which is still a major issue

Quote:

This 2e offers a system with 3 action and 1 reaction, which can be improved, or simply modified, depends your ideas. Alchemist is no different from any other classes in terms of freedom, but benefit more than anybody else from dedications.

How exactly?

[shroudb]

HumbleGamer wrote:

scoutmaster wrote:

since we're talking about poisons, how to use injury poison during a fight? It requires 2 hands to use - so applying poison to an arrow or crossbow bolt or even a sword is very difficult during an encoutner.

Moreover, comparing the poison to a bomb - if you miss with a bow, you have nothing - the bomb will deal at least a minimal damage

About poisons:

1) you can coat your weapons ( arrows or daggers or any other weapon ) whenever you want, and they remain poisoned until your next daily preparations.

2) quicksilver mutagen or doubling ring can help you dealing with coated melee weapons ( just drop the dagger and extract another one. quickdraw might be your best ally here, but still it's from a dedication ).

3) Toxicologist is specialized in poisons. Your class dc is going to be your poison dc regardless the poison level. Also, you need just 1 action to coat your weapon/ammunition. So even with perpetual poisons would be

1 action to create 1 perpetual poison
1 action to apply it
1 action to strike.

Eventually, you might consider taking "enduring alchemy", but imo it's not that worth the investement.

enduring doesnt work with poisons.

it's only elixirs and tools.

you can indeed poison with perpetual midcombat but that requires to either have a 1 handed weapon and the other hand free (so no shield) or (what i would do for a melee toxicologist) go Bastion and grab nimble shield hand at 6 since it's an interact action to poison your weapon so you can use your shield hand for it.

it's not unusable, but due to low damage of level 1 poisons it's like spenind 2 actions (1 to Quick alchemy the poison and another to apply) to get a chance to do like 1d6 extra damage, provoking twice while doing so and taking all your 3 actions to make 1 strike with the poisoned weapon.

so definately not ideal, i can hardly see the reason to do so in fact. It can be decent for your nomral poisons though since you can draw one with the familiar for free, then apply it, then move (or raise shield) and strike.

That's why in general I advocate for toxicologist to pick up the poison Bombs as their perpetual just so they have some aoe vs stuff like swarms and etc.

better to just go for Archer focused toxicologist that you can have prepoisoned multiple different arrows, and with Investigator MC you know if your strike will hit or not, so you arent wasting poison charges.
Archer dedication can give you flat-footed for pinpoint poisoner as well.

But as all alchemist builds it's something that only starts to shine at much later levels, like 10+ (get Archer at 2, Parting at 6, Ivestigator at 9, Stratagem at 10)

[HumbleGamer]

shroudb wrote:

But as all alchemist builds it's something that only starts to shine at much later levels, like 10+ (get Archer at 2, Parting at 6, Ivestigator at 9, Stratagem at 10)

That's the saddest thing imo ( not to say that you might find yourself spamming cantrips till lvl 10 ).

ps: the bastion dedication with nimble shield is awesome. Didn't considered that possibility ( and also you get reactive shield for free ).

MEATSHED wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

This 2e offers a system with 3 action and 1 reaction, which can be improved, or simply modified, depends your ideas. Alchemist is no different from any other classes in terms of freedom, but benefit more than anybody else from dedications.

How exactly?

For example, giving an alchemist an offensive cantrip ( wizard dedication for example, to share the int stat ) would improve the class way more than giving it to a champion, fighter or ranger.

[Exocist]

scoutmaster wrote:

before the fight - no problem. But there is a problem in the fight.

The poison is applied using two hands - with a one-handed weapon it will work somehow - but a bow and arrows or a two-handed weapon?
You have to hold the bow in one hand and that hand is no longer free - the toxicologist can't get around this rule - unless I'm wrong.

All of your ammunition can be poisoned at the start of the day - including with perpetuals, as they last indefinitely once applied.

never use a melee weapon on a toxicologist, the benefits (saving a few more reagents) do not outweigh the huge penalties of having to be in melee.

And yes, convince your friends to become archers as well if you want tox to be effective, then poison all their arrows too.

[shroudb]

HumbleGamer wrote:

ps: the bastion dedication with nimble shield is awesome. Didn't considered that possibility ( and also you get reactive shield for free ).

Reactive shield is good for the turns you have to move yes, although i'd advocate simply raising the shield and also picking up the disarm free action when you Shield Block for your level 4 for that build for when you are stationary or you don't want to poison your weapon (1st round, poison immune creatures, don't want to provoke, etc).

With shield and drakeheart you actually have good AC to stand in melee (apart from being a d8 class) although your damage will be lower than an Archer due to by default not having as many poisoned Strikes as an archer and no attack enhancer like Quicsilver. On the flipside you arent wasting poisons on a miss that Archer only gets around that at 10.

I think i've posted before both the melee and Archer variant in that old APG Builds thread with further details and feat picks.

[Exocist]

HumbleGamer wrote:

For example, giving an alchemist an offensive cantrip ( wizard dedication for example, to share the int stat ) would improve the class way more than giving it to a champion, fighter or ranger.

That’s more a condemnation of the class than a benefit... your base actions are so bad at low levels that spamming a cantrip (usually the worst thing a caster can do) is better than anything you can do...

[shroudb]

Exocist wrote:

scoutmaster wrote:

before the fight - no problem. But there is a problem in the fight.

The poison is applied using two hands - with a one-handed weapon it will work somehow - but a bow and arrows or a two-handed weapon?
You have to hold the bow in one hand and that hand is no longer free - the toxicologist can't get around this rule - unless I'm wrong.

All of your ammunition can be poisoned at the start of the day - including with perpetuals, as they last indefinitely once applied.

never use a melee weapon on a toxicologist, the benefits (saving a few more reagents) do not outweigh the huge penalties of having to be in melee.

And yes, convince your friends to become archers as well if you want tox to be effective, then poison all their arrows too.

you will find a ton of table variance with using perpetuals for permanent poisoning.

if a poison simply being applied means that it is "used", then the same exact logic can be used to carry over resources from one day to another, since that also means that all your poisons are "used" when applied and thus do not expire when you prepare new things next day.

personally i rule that poisons are "used" when they afflict a target and not when merely applied to an item.

(not that i think that the other ruling is that egregious that i would fuss about if i played with a GM that ruled the other way ofc)

[Exocist]

shroudb wrote:

Exocist wrote:

scoutmaster wrote:

before the fight - no problem. But there is a problem in the fight.

The poison is applied using two hands - with a one-handed weapon it will work somehow - but a bow and arrows or a two-handed weapon?
You have to hold the bow in one hand and that hand is no longer free - the toxicologist can't get around this rule - unless I'm wrong.

All of your ammunition can be poisoned at the start of the day - including with perpetuals, as they last indefinitely once applied.

never use a melee weapon on a toxicologist, the benefits (saving a few more reagents) do not outweigh the huge penalties of having to be in melee.

And yes, convince your friends to become archers as well if you want tox to be effective, then poison all their arrows too.

you will find a ton of table variance with using perpetuals for permanent poisoning.

if a poison simply being applied means that it is "used", then the same exact logic can be used to carry over resources from one day to another, since that also means that all your poisons are "used" when applied and thus do not expire when you prepare new things next day.

personally i rule that poisons are "used" when they afflict a target and not when merely applied to an item.

(not that i think that the other ruling is that egregious that i would fuss about if i played with a GM that ruled the other way ofc)

Ah but alchemicals with a non permanent effect do expire each daily prep as per the infused trait

Infused wrote:

You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again.

Indefinite and permanent are not the same thing. Indefinite is equivalent to spells with an unlimited duration. For something to be permanent, it must say “permanent” such as major vaccines.

[HumbleGamer]

Exocist wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

For example, giving an alchemist an offensive cantrip ( wizard dedication for example, to share the int stat ) would improve the class way more than giving it to a champion, fighter or ranger.

That’s more a condemnation of the class than a benefit... your base actions are so bad at low levels that spamming a cantrip (usually the worst thing a caster can do) is better than anything you can do...

If you carefully read my post you'll see aI mentioned it not as a benefit, but as a fact.

Knowing that, an alchemist would be likely to invest in dedications and archetypes more than any other class.

It's not balanced at all, I think we all share the same feelings towards this class, but given the current situation it's something which has to be taken into account ( I wouldn't probably dare to create an alchemist without something from another class to enhance, or simply "fix", parts of its mechanics).

I agree with you on applied poison.

[shroudb]

Exocist wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Exocist wrote:

scoutmaster wrote:

before the fight - no problem. But there is a problem in the fight.

The poison is applied using two hands - with a one-handed weapon it will work somehow - but a bow and arrows or a two-handed weapon?
You have to hold the bow in one hand and that hand is no longer free - the toxicologist can't get around this rule - unless I'm wrong.

All of your ammunition can be poisoned at the start of the day - including with perpetuals, as they last indefinitely once applied.

never use a melee weapon on a toxicologist, the benefits (saving a few more reagents) do not outweigh the huge penalties of having to be in melee.

And yes, convince your friends to become archers as well if you want tox to be effective, then poison all their arrows too.

you will find a ton of table variance with using perpetuals for permanent poisoning.

if a poison simply being applied means that it is "used", then the same exact logic can be used to carry over resources from one day to another, since that also means that all your poisons are "used" when applied and thus do not expire when you prepare new things next day.

personally i rule that poisons are "used" when they afflict a target and not when merely applied to an item.

(not that i think that the other ruling is that egregious that i would fuss about if i played with a GM that ruled the other way ofc)

Ah but alchemicals with a non permanent effect do expire each daily prep as per the infused trait

Infused wrote:

You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again.

Indefinite and permanent are not the same thing. Indefinite is equivalent to spells with an unlimited duration. For something to be permanent, it must...

the one expires at the end of your turn

the other expires at the end of the day.

imo they are the same but with different duration, this is why i said you will see variance

[HumbleGamer]

shroudb wrote:

the one expires at the end of your turn

the other expires at the end of the day.

imo they are the same but with different duration, this is why i said you will see variance

But when it comes to mechanics like

- infused trait
- advanced alchemy vs quick alchemy
- daily preparations

In my opinion would be strange to think they meant to perma stack an unlimited number of poisons ( just poisons and not any other alchemical item) avoiding the daily limits provided by the class.

[shroudb]

HumbleGamer wrote:

shroudb wrote:

the one expires at the end of your turn

the other expires at the end of the day.

imo they are the same but with different duration, this is why i said you will see variance

But when it comes to mechanics like

- infused trait
- advanced alchemy vs quick alchemy
- daily preparations

In my opinion would be strange to think they meant to perma stack an unlimited number of poisons ( just poisons and not any other alchemical item) avoiding the daily limits provided by the class.

that;s exactly why my reasoning is that neither should be considered "used" when just applied to a weapon, and only be considered "used" when afflicting a target.

hence why perpetual poisons (in my table) expire at the end of the turn even if they were applied to a weapon.

[Exocist]

shroudb wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

shroudb wrote:

the one expires at the end of your turn

the other expires at the end of the day.

imo they are the same but with different duration, this is why i said you will see variance

But when it comes to mechanics like

- infused trait
- advanced alchemy vs quick alchemy
- daily preparations

In my opinion would be strange to think they meant to perma stack an unlimited number of poisons ( just poisons and not any other alchemical item) avoiding the daily limits provided by the class.

that;s exactly why my reasoning is that neither should be considered "used" when just applied to a weapon, and only be considered "used" when afflicting a target.

hence why perpetual poisons (in my table) expire at the end of the turn even if they were applied to a weapon.

This doesn't make any rules consistent sense unless you're also ruling that Mutagenist and Chirurgeon perpetuals expire at the end of the turn you drink them... because being "used" is being activated for those, and the activation for the poison is identical to the activation for Mutagens/Antidote/Antiplague.

It would also make non-combat perpetual poisons completely useless - you can spike someone's drink with your perpetual arsenic, but they can never drink it before your turn ends so it would just dissipate

[HumbleGamer]

Being used is more triggering their effect than being used.

A mutagenist elixir shows its effects once ingested.

A poison depends the type of poison

Contact - when touched ( not triggered through injury )
Ingested - when ingested
Inhaled - when inhaled
Injury - when harm by a weapon coated with it

inhaled and injury "infused" poisons can be easily used, while for what concerns ingested and contact ones it's quite more problematic.

[shroudb]

Exocist wrote:

shroudb wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

shroudb wrote:

the one expires at the end of your turn

the other expires at the end of the day.

imo they are the same but with different duration, this is why i said you will see variance

But when it comes to mechanics like

- infused trait
- advanced alchemy vs quick alchemy
- daily preparations

In my opinion would be strange to think they meant to perma stack an unlimited number of poisons ( just poisons and not any other alchemical item) avoiding the daily limits provided by the class.

that;s exactly why my reasoning is that neither should be considered "used" when just applied to a weapon, and only be considered "used" when afflicting a target.

hence why perpetual poisons (in my table) expire at the end of the turn even if they were applied to a weapon.

This doesn't make any rules consistent sense unless you're also ruling that Mutagenist and Chirurgeon perpetuals expire at the end of the turn you drink them... because being "used" is being activated for those, and the activation for the poison is identical to the activation for Mutagens/Antidote/Antiplague.

It would also make non-combat perpetual poisons completely useless - you can spike someone's drink with your perpetual arsenic, but they can never drink it before your turn ends so it would just dissipate

again, by your exact reasoning, poisons should last indefinately, since they are "used" and their "effects" already done by simply applying them into a blade.

sorry, i can't see that as true.

so definately going by the rule of "too good to be true" here (that's part of the raw) i see poisons being "used" when applied to a target, not merely when applied to a weapon.

applied to a weapon is merely the means to apply the poison, you haven't used it yet.

[ottdmk]

The odd thing is, reading through all this, I find myself really wanting to play a bomber alchemist. Probably a Charhide Goblin.Could be a lot of fun...