| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alchemist is honestly a trap, I think you'll have more success going for another kind of class, such as an Investigator with Alchemical Sciences Methodology (of the Elixirs) and picking up the Medic archetype for the "mundane" healer route. For the support aspect you can pick up Athletic Strategist and Known Weaknesses. Or you can simply go all out into Alchemist multiclass archetype.
Chirurgeon is still in a very rough spot and I'm afraid that you won't get a satisfying experience in combat if you wish to go with it, it offers nothing on that front and outside of combat it isn't particularly interesting either. The Investigator will satisfyingly allow you to play a surgeon of sorts on top of granting you lots of skill (Battle Medicine feat line for support, Bon Mot to help your spellcaster friends, trips and grapples to inflict flat-footed).
Regardless, it is just a suggestion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They’re a supplement. Everything alchemist has is a supplement... there is no “main” thing for an alchemist. The only way to play them effectively is to use all of it concurrently.
Toxicologist will run into issues with poisons, the most common poison immunities being Elementals, Undead and Constructs. Sticky elemental bombs and sticky ghost charges will deal with undead, and well everyone sucks against constructs but alchemist doesn’t have a penalty against antimagic or high phys res. So bombs are good for them even though they’re incentivised to use poison.
Likewise a bomber only wants to throw bombs when they want to deal damage and maybe apply a debuff with debilitating. They should not spend all their reagents on bombs. In fact, I’d argue that once they have perpetuals, they should spend none of their reagents on bombs, relying on perpetual infusions + additives when they want damage. They should still be using elixirs, mutagens and poisons to support the party as their main thing.
Mutagenist and Chirurgeon... yeah just don’t pick either. They don’t really have any benefit aside from their level 13 features, which, while good, don’t do enough to offset that their perpetuals and level 1 features do nothing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're starting after level 4, I think picking a Chirurgeon my be feasible, because you won't have to deal with being borderline useless in combat, otherwise, the Healing Bomb feat isn't worth the wait. At all.
It should've been a basic feature of the Chirurgeon. What's worse is that Quick Alchemy is very expensive action AND cost-wise. AT level 4, you'll be spending 2 actions to heal 1d6 AND you won't be applying the +1 buff. Just to put into perspective, a Champion's Lay on Hands will be healing 18HP guaranteed (equivalent to maximum roll of 3d6) for 1-action with ZERO feat investment, just inherent to the class. Oh, did I forget to mention that not only you'll be spending a valuable resource because you can't use the feature with any elixir of life but you also have a chance to lose the healing? Specially if your ally has really good AC, which those that need healing the most will certainly have. So. Much. Fun.
Think very long and very hard if Chirurgeon is really what you want to play, if your table is playing standard Pathfinder, then you'll be facing lots of combat encounters as it's usual for this system, if your group focus more on roleplay and have fewer combats than you would see normally, then go for it, being a Chirurgeon won't hurt.
Well is there anything Paizo can do to fix this class?
Otherwise I think I would rather just play a Sorcerer after all
If your aim is to be a healer, then Angelic Bloodline is a good bet, Life Mystery Oracle is also an interesting option. If you want to stay in the same kind of lane the Chirurgeon alchemist would cover, then the investigator with focus on alchemy is your best bet. Mundane healing is great in this edition, so having good offensive power is always a good option.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're starting after level 4, I think picking a Chirurgeon my be feasible, because you won't have to deal with being borderline useless in combat, otherwise, the Healing Bomb feat isn't worth the wait. At all.
It should've been a basic feature of the Chirurgeon. What's worse is that Quick Alchemy is very expensive action AND cost-wise. AT level 4, you'll be spending 2 actions to heal 1d6 AND you won't be applying the +1 buff. Just to put into perspective, a Champion's Lay on Hands will be healing 18HP guaranteed (equivalent to maximum roll of 3d6) for 1-action with ZERO feat investment, just inherent to the class. Oh, did I forget to mention that not only you'll be spending a valuable resource because you can't use the feature with any elixir of life but you also have a chance to lose the healing? Specially if your ally has really good AC, which those that need healing the most will certainly have. So. Much. Fun.
Think very long and very hard if Chirurgeon is really what you want to play, if your table is playing standard Pathfinder, then you'll be facing lots of combat encounters as it's usual for this system, if your group focus more on roleplay and have fewer combats than you would see normally, then go for it, being a Chirurgeon won't hurt.
Healing bomb doesn’t do anything for chirurgeon until level 13. It’s an additive, it only works off quick alch which chirurgeon doesn’t do better than other fields until 13th..
It sounds as though the Alchemist is an unplayable mess. Is Paizo aware? Is there anything that can be done to “patch” the class to bring it up to par? Or anything to make it workable? Is it an exercise in futility to attempt?
Remake it from scratch, from the ground up? Or just take it as a multiclass: it works ok as your side job.
- you CAN make them your main attack
- they ARE a supplement.
Alchemists are not main martials or blasters, so don't expect to play them satisfactorily as such. That said, bombs as a side gig can be pretty good and even amazing in the right conditions, so prep a few if you have spare reagents or expect to get good value out of them.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds as though the Alchemist is an unplayable mess. Is Paizo aware? Is there anything that can be done to “patch” the class to bring it up to par? Or anything to make it workable? Is it an exercise in futility to attempt?
Alchemist kind of has two tiers of effectiveness
The level 1-(7-9, may get some variance on this) range where it’s just unplayably bad, especially in combat slogs like APs. You just run out of reagents doing barely relevant things... and then you’re spamming electric arc or a crossbow or a bow for the rest of the day.
And then there’s the levels past there where it’s actually a decent support class. The problem is it’s just boring as heck to play. Most of the benefits you give (poisons, mutagens) are handed out at the start of the day. If you’re not actually looking for times where those +1s did stuff, it’s very easy to think you’re doing nothing, especially with poisons which have such a low failure rate that it’s easy to think “wow I’m wasting reagents on nothing” after a series of unlucky rolls, when they are, on average, likely to hit stage 1 after every 3-4 hit and do have decent effects.
But what does the alchemist do after they’ve handed out all these buffs? Nothing, really. The bomber will often just be doing Quick Alchemy (Double Brew, Perpetual)->Sticky X->Debilitating Y, maybe with Double Slice and Dual Thrower from DWW if they can afford it. The toxicologist will probably be making 2 shots with a bow, inflicting only perpetual poisons, because the reagent poisons are saved for your fighter with a decent hit bonus. The mutagenist and chirurgeon... i don’t know what they’re doing but it sure isn’t anything good.
And that’s really the secondary problem of the alchemist, even when it is good it’s pretty boring. You dispense all your stuff at the start of the day then play a cheerleader. Also you never get anything new, just stuff you had before with bigger numbers. Imagine playing a prepared caster without cantrips, but a bunch of their highest level of spell per day... the twist is that they only go up to 4th level spells, and even then they never learn any spells above 1st, they can only heighten their lower level spells... that’s alchemist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds as though the Alchemist is an unplayable mess. Is Paizo aware? Is there anything that can be done to “patch” the class to bring it up to par?
It already has been remade, in the transition from the Playtest to the finished version since it needed a lot of changes (The Resonance system was scraped, something the alchemists were supposed to be good at. They weren't). Then it received some buffs recently on errata, such as being allowed the wild concept of using their own DC for items they made at level 5(with Quick Alchemy only, given the feat Powerful Alchemy. Funny how literally no other class needed such a thing,nor wait for it. It's like a Wizard not being able to use it's own class DC).
Or anything to make it workable? Is it an exercise in futility to attempt?
You'll find plenty of defenders saying the class is fine. They all have mainly the same argument: No. You need to be an item dispenser, playing anything else and you're playing it wrong and ineffectively.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the only class I've seen a player ask to switch out of at my table. I'd stay away unless you're only looking to play for the flavor
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the basic deal. Mathematically your bombs will be fine on damage but behind ranged martials, without investment. With investment, you'll be pretty much at the level of a ranged martial (shortbow level) so long as your bombs last - but you'll need to pick up Calculated/Expanded Splash and/or Sticky Bombs.
The thing that's hard to work with about alchemist is that if you're expecting to throw an alchemical bomb every round, you're going to be very displeased, especially at low levels. However, alchemist is still a martial at some level, and does get expert weapons 2 levels behind others.
The summary is really just that every alchemist will have to make full use of everything - weapons, elixirs, poisons, bombs - they have available. You can't just go all-in on one thing. (Possible exception: fully invested bombers and toxicologists.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the basic deal. Mathematically your bombs will be fine on damage but behind ranged martials, without investment. With investment, you'll be pretty much at the level of a ranged martial (shortbow level) so long as your bombs last - but you'll need to pick up Calculated/Expanded Splash and/or Sticky Bombs.
Translation: if you invest all character resources into making bombs viable you'll be on par with martial that picks up a shortbow and makes sure they has appropriate runes on it. Ignoring everything else these martials can get via class feats, non-basic runes, etc.
No, if you invest all character resources into making bombs viable you approximately do 1.5x the damage of a, say, bow champion who maxed out on property runes for damage.
I think the alchemist suffers a bit that it is the only full class holding down it's chassis space. It is between a martial and a caster, and figuring out how to make that space work for your character takes a lot of thinking and being satisfied with modest success rather than a tide turning MVP moment.
That and alchemy not being wholly satisfying by itself. As a side enhancement to your class, it can be great (I certainly like picking up the MC dedication), but the alchemist class doesn't seem to have enough to it to take full advantage of your alchemy.
They honestly probably would have been better off making alchemists full martials and dialing back some of the other class features for the stronger research fields. Given the buffs alchemists already received, and they with them still feeling generally underwhelming, perhaps that might not even be necessary.
My mind keeps circling around to the playtest inventor, and how surprised I was that it was a full martial instead of a support like the alchemist. I'm curious how much they balance the alchemist infusion abilities against martial proficiency, and what trade-offs would have been needed to bring the alchemist up to at least that level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll find plenty of defenders saying the class is fine. They all have mainly the same argument: No. You need to be an item dispenser, playing anything else and you're playing it wrong and ineffectively.
This is actually pretty darn close to accurate for sure. People trying to play the Alchemist outside their designated role are going to be just as disappointed as a Warpriest who wants to deal damage like a Fighter, a Rogue that wants to cast spells, or a Barbarian who invested everything into Medicine skills, or the endlessly meme'd Muscle-Wizard. The Alchemist is exceedingly good at providing JUST the right effect to their opponents or giving their own team a distinct advantage via their Alchemical crafting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They honestly probably would have been better off making alchemists full martials and dialing back some of the other class features for the stronger research fields. Given the buffs alchemists already received, and they with them still feeling generally underwhelming, perhaps that might not even be necessary.
I'll make this a bit briefer than the other examples I've done, since this mainly changes the level 15 comparison.
Vs AC 34 (36 + flat-footed), sns fighter/dragon barbarian/bear animal barbarian/bestial alchemist:
Fighter, 21 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking flaming frost longsword for +30 (3d8+2d6+13, avg 33.5) - averaging 40.2/23.45 damage
Dragon Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost greatsword for +28 (3d12+2d6+27, avg 53.5) - averaging 48.15/29.425
Bear Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost claw/jaws for +28 (3d10+2d6+23, avg 46.5) - averaging 46.5/26.1
Bestial Alchemist, 20 Str, master; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +29, claw for followups in d8s (3d10+2d6+11, deadly 2d10, avg 34.5) - averaging 42.75/23.15 damage
Drakeheart Bestial Alchemist taking Feral bonus penalty, 20 Str, master; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +29, claw for followups in d10s (3d12+2d6+11, deadly 2d10, avg 37.5) - averaging 46.05/26.75
The weird thing is that the two mutagens I looked at do nothing to your ranged proficiency, so there's absolutely nothing stopping you from picking up all the bomber feats too and just hucking bombs whenever you don't want to get into melee.
Regardless, this alchemist only spent their level 8 feat on Feral Mutagen for the deadly d10s, so everything else is fair game to pick - my personal choice would probably be Monk Dedication for Flurry of Blows. I used Drakeheart only when Feral's penalty was on to offset the penalty, but an ideal turn for this alchemist might be Stride into flanking, Demoralize with Feral mutagen's bonus, and Flurry.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll find plenty of defenders saying the class is fine. They all have mainly the same argument: No. You need to be an item dispenser, playing anything else and you're playing it wrong and ineffectively.
This is actually pretty darn close to accurate for sure. People trying to play the Alchemist outside their designated role are going to be just as disappointed as a Warpriest who wants to deal damage like a Fighter, a Rogue that wants to cast spells, or a Barbarian who invested everything into Medicine skills, or the endlessly meme'd Muscle-Wizard. The Alchemist is exceedingly good at providing JUST the right effect to their opponents or giving their own team a distinct advantage via their Alchemical crafting.
So, no matter what kind of research field you choose, either is the melee-oriented Mutagenist, the Ranged damage dealer that is clearly intended to blow up their enemies or the pure support Chirurgeon path, in order to play a satisfying alchemist you need to give all your resources because your party members are better at using them than you, no matter what concept you thought that fit an "Alchemist", at all?
As far as I know, every other class in the game allows various concepts to work within their framework, the Alchemist should not be any different. In PF1e you could already execute different playstyles satisfactorily, why in PF2e the alchemists are obligated to be item dispensers and nothing else? Seems like something was lost in translation. Lots of people arrived at the same conclusion about them, it at least warrants acknowledgement, don't you all think? Instead of just using the overly wordy version of "You just don't get it".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think another weird thing is that once level 14 hits, any alchemist can just choose to be one of the best social skill users in the game, second only to Outwit Ranger (in situations where there's no circumstance penalty and they speak the same language) or maybe a bard with tongues.
Like, the optimized bomber can do this without really impacting their main thing, and at most I'd spend some money to find myself a Glove of Storing if I wanted to pull it out on a whim.
Vs AC 34 (36 + flat-footed), sns fighter/dragon barbarian/bear animal barbarian/bestial alchemist:
Fighter, 21 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking flaming frost longsword for +30 (3d8+2d6+13, avg 33.5) - averaging 40.2/23.45 damage
Dragon Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost greatsword for +28 (3d12+2d6+27, avg 53.5) - averaging 48.15/29.425
Bear Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost claw/jaws for +28 (3d10+2d6+23, avg 46.5) - averaging 46.5/26.1
Bestial Alchemist, 20 Str, master; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +29, claw for followups in d8s (3d10+2d6+11, deadly 2d10, avg 34.5) - averaging 42.75/23.15 damage
Drakeheart Bestial Alchemist taking Feral bonus penalty, 20 Str, master; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +29, claw for followups in d10s (3d12+2d6+11, deadly 2d10, avg 37.5) - averaging 46.05/26.75
I'm curious how quicksilver/juggernaut combo would do with an finesse weapon like spiked chain, but thank you, that is illuminating. So damagewise on par, but that means the natural versatility and utility of the class might vault them over the top to OP.
So, no matter what kind of research field you choose, either is the melee-oriented Mutagenist, the Ranged damage dealer that is clearly intended to blow up their enemies or the pure support Chirurgeon path, in order to play a satisfying alchemist you need to give all your resources because your party members are better at using them than you, no matter what concept you thought that fit an "Alchemist", at all?
As far as I know, every other class in the game allows various concepts to work within their framework, the Alchemist should not be any different. In PF1e you could already execute different playstyles satisfactorily, why in PF2e the alchemists are obligated to be item dispensers and nothing else? Seems like something was lost in translation. Lots of people arrived at the same conclusion about them, it at least warrants acknowledgement, don't you all think? Instead of just using the overly wordy version of "You just don't get it".
A bomber that goes all in on their bombs is going to blow anyone else that tries to use bombs as a main weapon out of the water (possibly literally), and warpriests arguably have similar issues where they are better off buffing their allies rather than putting heroism on themselves, but otherwise yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They honestly probably would have been better off making alchemists full martials and dialing back some of the other class features for the stronger research fields. Given the buffs alchemists already received, and they with them still feeling generally underwhelming, perhaps that might not even be necessary.I'll make this a bit briefer than the other examples I've done, since this mainly changes the level 15 comparison.
Vs AC 34 (36 + flat-footed), sns fighter/dragon barbarian/bear animal barbarian/bestial alchemist:
Fighter, 21 Str, legendary; +2 greater striking flaming frost longsword for +30 (3d8+2d6+13, avg 33.5) - averaging 40.2/23.45 damage
Dragon Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost greatsword for +28 (3d12+2d6+27, avg 53.5) - averaging 48.15/29.425
Bear Barbarian, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost claw/jaws for +28 (3d10+2d6+23, avg 46.5) - averaging 46.5/26.1
Bestial Alchemist, 20 Str, master; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +29, claw for followups in d8s (3d10+2d6+11, deadly 2d10, avg 34.5) - averaging 42.75/23.15 damage
Drakeheart Bestial Alchemist taking Feral bonus penalty, 20 Str, master; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +29, claw for followups in d10s (3d12+2d6+11, deadly 2d10, avg 37.5) - averaging 46.05/26.75The weird thing is that the two mutagens I looked at do nothing to your ranged proficiency, so there's absolutely nothing stopping you from picking up all the bomber feats too and just hucking bombs whenever you don't want to get into melee.
Regardless, this alchemist only spent their level 8 feat on Feral Mutagen for the deadly d10s, so everything else is fair game to pick - my personal choice would probably be Monk Dedication for Flurry of Blows. I used Drakeheart only when Feral's penalty was on to offset the...
Addendum to list the current situation:
Vs AC 34 (36 + flat-footed), normal bestial alchemist:
Bestial Alchemist, 20 Str, expert; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +27, claw for followups in d8s (3d10+2d6+7, deadly 2d10, avg 30.5) - averaging 29.65/15.575 damage
Drakeheart Bestial Alchemist taking Feral bonus penalty, 20 Str, expert; +3 greater striking flaming frost jaws for +27, claw for followups in d10s (3d12+2d6+11, deadly 2d10, avg 33.5) - averaging 32.35/17.325
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bomber that goes all in on their bombs is going to blow anyone else that tries to use bombs as a main weapon out of the water (possibly literally), and warpriests arguably have similar issues where they are better off buffing their allies rather than putting heroism on themselves, but otherwise yes.
I've seen said bomber in action. The player retired the character at 11th level because she felt she wasn't contributing enough. And that was more than a feeling. There was a single encounter in Age of Ashes where the Alchemist's presence was crucial, which against The Vision of Dahak a hazard with Cold weakness. It was the very definition of underwhelming.
The same would've been true for a Mutagenist Alchemist, he would've been dead against the first Charau-Ka Butcher we faced (nasty little creatures that were print with higher stats, but we didn't knew it at the time).
Seeing my friend struggling with the class for so long was really disheartening. The difference in her after the transition from a fully optimized Bomber Alchemist to a simple 2h Redeemer was like night and day.
The only thing I want is to see the Alchemists being as mechanically interesting as the other class and just as capable of allowing different kinds of playstyles. Nothing more. Even if it weren't as weak as it is currently, it would still be a pretty lackluster class, because Alchemy is a great niche to explore, but so far, it's been insanely boring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you compare alchemists to the other classes, they stand in stark contrast in how they're designed: they focus on quantity over quality. In other words, they're really good at creating craploads of low-grade stuff (I'm talking about level 3-4 onwards; before that, you'll need most of your reagents to fill your basic function).
The other niche they have is elixirs. With the removal of the vast majority of classic buff spells, especially those that affect combat, elixirs are now the best way to improve your party's abilities in terms of duration, frequency and raw capabilities, both in and out of combat.
(Side note: Because of these two factors, I find alchemists are ideally suited to Organized Play. The typical 4-hour scenario will have 2 combat encounters and 2 social or skill encounters, which means you should have just enough resources to handle combat, while still being able to help in the noncombat portions.)
In terms of subclasses, I think the bomber, the mutagenist* and the toxicologist are all roughly equivalent. Chirurgeons are quite lacklustre for most of their careers; they excel at out-of-combat healing and recovery, but anyone can do just as well with one or two skill feats, and for in-combat healing, you'll be outclassed by bards, champions and divine and primal casters.
* GameGorgon/QueueTimes made a video a few months ago on a feral mutagenist build that looks really fun!
When you compare alchemists to the other classes, they stand in stark contrast in how they're designed: they focus on quantity over quality.
I dunno, I'd say the big deal of alchemists is that in opposition to wizards and other casters, all their "slots" can be used on high level stuff. So at the same time, they have no big major item, but they have a huge amount of intermediate resources.
At the same time,
You'll find plenty of defenders saying the class is fine. They all have mainly the same argument: No. You need to be an item dispenser, playing anything else and you're playing it wrong and ineffectively.This is actually pretty darn close to accurate for sure. People trying to play the Alchemist outside their designated role are going to be just as disappointed as a Warpriest who wants to deal damage like a Fighter, a Rogue that wants to cast spells, or a Barbarian who invested everything into Medicine skills, or the endlessly meme'd Muscle-Wizard. The Alchemist is exceedingly good at providing JUST the right effect to their opponents or giving their own team a distinct advantage via their Alchemical crafting.
There is an addendum to be made here. I see constantly people proposing "alchemists fix" or "how to make alchemist good", and I read things that would make a bomber competitive with a weak martial...
...and all I can think of is, how damn good would a serious alchemist be with those changes? Because I can tell you right now, if I see alchemist getting full martial defense and offense with innate extra DC and free items as well as free action item drawing like I've seen in here, I'm playing a mutagenist. +4 item bonus to attacks, agile d10 with deadly d10, shield, free buffs and utility for himself AND the party, and a good ranged backup option in the form of versatile energy attacks ON TOP OF a martial chassis? Heck yeah.Buff the chassis, and Bomber will be ok... But everything else will get pretty crazy.
Make a bomber archetype that buffs bomb usage but excludes making elixirs, and you can actually balance it around martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Play an alchemist yourself and see how you like it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of the alchemical items will have the same kind of dramatic effects that character has, also... The Goblin Alchemist from WC3 isn't an item dispenser at all. He's more of a crowd control type of character with AOE healing capabilities, two things that he Alchemist isn't particularly good at doing in terms of mechanic, but that flavor definitely fits. Surprisingly enough, the Barbarian himself is the only one able to enrage their allies so far, with its class feat "Share Rage", so that aspect won't be making into your character, neither you'll be able to make your allies "hit faster", the closest to this concept would be a Flurry Ranger using Warden's boon which would decrease MAP for an ally and thus enabling more attacks.
So, with any character translation, you'll have to pick and choose what you want to adapt. If the item dispenser was the goal of your build, then the Alchemist will definitely satisfy that, because it's the only thing it can competently do. You'll craft your items in the morning and give your allies their allotments, in battle you'll have to resign yourself with a ranged weapon and throw the occasional bombs since a spellcasting multiclass doesn't fit the Goblin Alchemist concept, despite this being he solution that almost every alchemist reaches at some point (MC into a class that grants you Electric Arc and then use it as bread and butter).
You may consider asking your GM if he would allow you to "reskin" or even homebrew an animal companion that fit the ogre description. You could use the "Ape" stat block and swap the ability from Frightening Display to the Badger's Rage ability. So you could have Alchemist with Beastmaster Archetype for the companion as early as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds as though the Alchemist is an unplayable mess. Is Paizo aware? Is there anything that can be done to “patch” the class to bring it up to par? Or anything to make it workable? Is it an exercise in futility to attempt?
It sounds like an unplayable mess because most of the alchemist's defenders are pretty sick of having literally the same argument in 20 different threads.
The problem with "patching" the class is that fundamentally, people disagree on what needs to be done.
For instance, when the class was published, it was popular to complain about alchemists running out of bombs. Some people even cited how that was so much worse than PF1. Despite how easy that was to disprove (PF1 alchemists with 20 INT got 8 bombs/day, PF2 alchemists with 18 INT could make 10 bombs/day), somehow this was literally a point of contention.
After much complaining, the whiners got their wish - now level 1 alchemists can make 15 bombs/day.
Happy?
No, nobody is, because not having enough bombs was never the real problem. It was just ignorant rantings and people throwing 3 bombs/turn because they were allowed to.
And that's symptomatic of the problem with the alchemist discussion. People are developing really good builds with many other classes, there are 4th and 5th generation builds for many classes. Meanwhile, the alchemist class is where most classes were in late 2019 - basically we've got a 1st generation and maybe some early 2nds.
The bomber is an okay class, and I had fun with it even at lower levels even before the errata. It's definitely not a class where I find myself outshining others at every turn. But I've also never really had trouble finding a place, either.
If, off the top of your head, you can't remember everything that you can make (pop quiz - what elixir boosts your Fort saves?), it's going to be less fun. If you're used to doing one thing really well and then taking a 15-minute power nap while everyone gets you through the parts you're not good at, alchemist is not for you. Even for things like consistent groups (where the same 4 characters adventure together every week), the versatility of the alchemist just isn't going to be a big plus. Alchemist, admittedly (and maybe by design) is kind of a backup everything. It's not the best striker nor the best healer nor the best buffer nor the best tank, so if you have a dedicated striker and dedicated healer and dedicated buffer and dedicated tank, alchemist has a questionable role. But if you show up at a PFS table and the 5 other people bring random characters, chances are the alchemist will be the caulk that holds the makeshift boat together.
Alchemist is not for everybody, but that doesn't mean it's for nobody.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well you know my entire plan WAS to be an item dispenser.
Well, you have to be happy being a passive "an item dispenser": by this I mean you pass them out at the start of the day instead of taking an active part in an encounter using items other than bombs.
I wanted to play as a healer that also had buffs, to help increase damage or tankiness or whatever else by handing out the items. I had no intention of trying to make myself more powerful but rather buff the party fighter or Barbarian or whatever to hit harder, be faster, be stronger or whatever.
IMO, this is much better done with a caster. As an alchemist, it's not really you healing/buffing/ect but the other party members using their own actions to do so with your items.
I wanted to play as a healer that also had buffs, to help increase damage or tankiness or whatever else by handing out the items. I had no intention of trying to make myself more powerful but rather buff the party fighter or Barbarian or whatever to hit harder, be faster, be stronger or whatever.IMO, this is much better done with a caster. As an alchemist, it's not really you healing/buffing/ect but the other party members using their own actions to do so with your items.
Point of order: Interact actions can be used on willing allies to administer your items.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point of order: Interact actions can be used on willing allies to administer your items.
I wanted to play as a healer that also had buffs, to help increase damage or tankiness or whatever else by handing out the items. I had no intention of trying to make myself more powerful but rather buff the party fighter or Barbarian or whatever to hit harder, be faster, be stronger or whatever.IMO, this is much better done with a caster. As an alchemist, it's not really you healing/buffing/ect but the other party members using their own actions to do so with your items.
In your average/normal encounter, you aren't going to be doing that: it's true that you can feed others, most times it's not very feasible. So it it possible? Sure. But is it something you expect to do often and build around? Nope, and that was my point: the alchemist just isn't passing out affects but passing out items that give buffs unlike a caster that is actually passing out affects.
Is there anything in the rules that say I as a goblin cannot ride on the shoulders of the party fighter or Barbarian? Haha
You wouldn't be riding as that means you're controlling the other player. Now there is no issue with the other player putting you in a baby carrier or just stuffing you in backpack [goblins are only 3 bulk]: so if you don't mind being luggage, it's not an issue. Just be aware that if they have Friendly Toss, they might use you as ammo and toss you 30'. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has nothing to do with the Alchemist but is a different question honestly.
I’ve seen Casters have been needed, is attempting to be a blaster, like a WoW mage out of the question?
Blasting isn’t necessarily bad, you just have to understand that blasting isn’t good against solo bosses. Most blast spells are AoE, and fairly decent when they hit like 3-4 enemies. The single target ones tend to suck unless they’re also a debuff, but you’d usually be better off just throwing a debuff.
I recommend elemental sorc or evoker wizard (spell blending thesis) if you want to blast.
This has nothing to do with the Alchemist but is a different question honestly.
I’ve seen Casters have been needed, is attempting to be a blaster, like a WoW mage out of the question?
Blasting isn’t necessarily bad, you just have to understand that blasting isn’t good against solo bosses. Most blast spells are AoE, and fairly decent when they hit like 3-4 enemies. The single target ones tend to suck unless they’re also a debuff, but you’d usually be better off just throwing a debuff.
I recommend elemental sorc or evoker wizard (spell blending thesis) if you want to blast.
3-4 LOWER LEVEL enemies. Just forget using spells on higher-than-you level enemies, it's a waste.