| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the strategy of "throw two bombs a round" is very flawed, moreso if your backup weapon is a dagger. I may be called a madman for this, but I don't think that too many classes should be attempting two Strikes a round unless they specifically built for doing that (whether it be through agile weapons, fighter proficiency, monk flurry, or even just taking advantage of a weakened foe). Also, they're trained in simple weapons, so why a dagger? Grabbing a crossbow or spear helps smooth out turns at lower levels.
It's been said that the alchemist has many weaknesses, and I don't disagree (though the extent of them, I'll take issue with). However, with limited resources, throwing them away on almost guaranteed misses and not planning for what happens when you do run out isn't a class-side failing.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just tell your Alchemist friend to give all the items to the other party members. There. Your friend is now a fully optimized Alchemist. He will be playing the superior, and only, playstyle suitable for an Alchemist.
For extra efficiency, the player can just play from the comfort of his own home. No need to be at the table, just send the party members the crafted item list and allotted items for each one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just tell your Alchemist friend to give all the items to the other party members. There. Your friend is now a fully optimized Alchemist. He will be playing the superior, and only, playstyle suitable for an Alchemist.
For extra efficiency, the player can just play from the comfort of his own home. No need to be at the table, just send the party members the crafted item list and allotted items for each one.
This is beyond incorrect.
Alchemist will definitely still have a rough level 1 compared to a bard who managed to pick up the best cantrip in the game that also is scaling off their Cha. Honestly, literally every other class will be bad compared to that.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just tell your Alchemist friend to give all the items to the other party members. There. Your friend is now a fully optimized Alchemist. He will be playing the superior, and only, playstyle suitable for an Alchemist.
For extra efficiency, the player can just play from the comfort of his own home. No need to be at the table, just send the party members the crafted item list and allotted items for each one.
This is beyond incorrect.
Alchemist will definitely still have a rough level 1 compared to a bard who managed to pick up the best cantrip in the game that also is scaling off their Cha. Honestly, literally every other class will be bad compared to that.
Well, except the Barbarian who hits like a Mack truck, the fighter who never misses, the wizard who ALSO has the best cantrip in the game, the gnome cleric who ALSO has the best cantrip in the game, the cleric who can bring the entire party back from death 5 times, the ......
The alchemist is playable but it needs care and attention. In particular, it NEEDS to be built to have a decent infinite resource it can use in fights (be it an out of class cantrip, decent proficiency with a ranged weapon, etc) so that it can conserve its bombs.
Unlike most of the other classes, it is very easy to build a nearly non functional alchemist at low levels
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just tell your Alchemist friend to give all the items to the other party members. There. Your friend is now a fully optimized Alchemist. He will be playing the superior, and only, playstyle suitable for an Alchemist.
For extra efficiency, the player can just play from the comfort of his own home. No need to be at the table, just send the party members the crafted item list and allotted items for each one.
This is beyond incorrect.
Alchemist will definitely still have a rough level 1 compared to a bard who managed to pick up the best cantrip in the game that also is scaling off their Cha. Honestly, literally every other class will be bad compared to that.
Well, except the Barbarian who hits like a Mack truck, the fighter who never misses, the wizard who ALSO has the best cantrip in the game, the gnome cleric who ALSO has the best cantrip in the game, the cleric who can bring the entire party back from death 5 times, the ......
The alchemist is playable but it needs care and attention. In particular, it NEEDS to be built to have a decent infinite resource it can use in fights (be it an out of class cantrip, decent proficiency with a ranged weapon, etc) so that it can conserve its bombs.
Unlike most of the other classes, it is very easy to build a nearly non functional alchemist at low levels
you know, normally I drop by with something like "you guys are playing Alchemist very wrong", but...
This one.
This one is right.
Alchemist isn't weak, Alchemist is [/i]hard[/i]. And while that's definitely a flaw, no amount of buffing will ever fix it.
Pick up a weapon, maybe a shield. Figure out what you're doing when you're not using reagents. Now do it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just tell your Alchemist friend to give all the items to the other party members. There. Your friend is now a fully optimized Alchemist. He will be playing the superior, and only, playstyle suitable for an Alchemist.
For extra efficiency, the player can just play from the comfort of his own home. No need to be at the table, just send the party members the crafted item list and allotted items for each one.
This is beyond incorrect.
Alchemist will definitely still have a rough level 1 compared to a bard who managed to pick up the best cantrip in the game that also is scaling off their Cha. Honestly, literally every other class will be bad compared to that.
I am just stating the current meta for Alchemists. In every discussion I've been about them, I've always been told that people were playing the alchemist wrong and that this was the way they meant to be played. Consider me a convert.
I was just giving siegfriedliner the answers. No need to spend pages and pages of discussion, if the most optimized Alchemist has already been cracked. And the best part? No matter what kind of Alchemist you chose to be, no matter your character concept, this playstyle fits like a glove! Isn't this amazing? Everything else is wrong and doesn't work, specially when compared to the optimized item dispenser playstyle.
I wish other classes were solved like the Alchemist, I've tried to make 10 Barbarians now and no matter what I chose, I never feel like I'm the most optimal Barbarian, even though I'm immensely satisfied with my choices that fit my concept really, really, really well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Citation needed)
Just tell your Alchemist friend to give all the items to the other party members. There. Your friend is now a fully optimized Alchemist. He will be playing the superior, and only, playstyle suitable for an Alchemist.
For extra efficiency, the player can just play from the comfort of his own home. No need to be at the table, just send the party members the crafted item list and allotted items for each one.
This is beyond incorrect.
Alchemist will definitely still have a rough level 1 compared to a bard who managed to pick up the best cantrip in the game that also is scaling off their Cha. Honestly, literally every other class will be bad compared to that.
I am just stating the current meta for Alchemists. In every discussion I've been about them, I've always been told that people were playing the alchemist wrong and that this was the way they meant to be played. Consider me a convert.
I was just giving siegfriedliner the answers. No need to spend pages and pages of discussion, if the most optimized Alchemist has already been cracked. And the best part? No matter what kind of Alchemist you chose to be, no matter your character concept, this playstyle fits like a glove! Isn't this amazing? Everything else is wrong and doesn't work, specially when compared to the optimized item dispenser playstyle.
I wish other classes were solved like the Alchemist, I've tried to make 10 Barbarians now and no matter what I chose, I never feel like I'm the most optimal Barbarian, even though I'm immensely satisfied with my choices that fit my concept really, really, really well.
Giving your bombs to the fighter, even if the fighter went legendary in bomb-throwing, is still less effective than doing it yourself. Even if you have a significantly lower hit chance, there are tons of feats that change the effectiveness. In this case, even if you're comparing to a fighter (who will have +3 to hit), this mentioned alchemist clearly has Quick Bomber and is on the bomber path, letting them throw into melee without problems for 1 action.
At this level, though, wasting your heavily limited supply of bombs on a -5 attack is really not great, so you're going to want some other weapon to work with as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving your bombs to the fighter, even if the fighter went legendary in bomb-throwing, is still less effective than doing it yourself. Even if you have a significantly lower hit chance, there are tons of feats that change the effectiveness. In this case, even if you're comparing to a fighter (who will have +3 to hit), this...Just tell your Alchemist friend to give all the items to the other party members. There. Your friend is now a fully optimized Alchemist. He will be playing the superior, and only, playstyle suitable for an Alchemist.
For extra efficiency, the player can just play from the comfort of his own home. No need to be at the table, just send the party members the crafted item list and allotted items for each one.
This is beyond incorrect.
Alchemist will definitely still have a rough level 1 compared to a bard who managed to pick up the best cantrip in the game that also is scaling off their Cha. Honestly, literally every other class will be bad compared to that.
I am just stating the current meta for Alchemists. In every discussion I've been about them, I've always been told that people were playing the alchemist wrong and that this was the way they meant to be played. Consider me a convert.
I was just giving siegfriedliner the answers. No need to spend pages and pages of discussion, if the most optimized Alchemist has already been cracked. And the best part? No matter what kind of Alchemist you chose to be, no matter your character concept, this playstyle fits like a glove! Isn't this amazing? Everything else is wrong and doesn't work, specially when compared to the optimized item dispenser playstyle.
I wish other classes were solved like the Alchemist, I've tried to make 10 Barbarians now and no matter what I chose, I never feel like I'm the most optimal Barbarian, even though I'm immensely satisfied with my choices that fit my concept really, really, really well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those feats require you to actually land a direct hit with a bomb? The alch isn't hitting anything remotely threatening with any regularity between their awful proficiency and not having a max attacking stat. The bombs are more like a consolation prize rather than anything to praise or be excited about. I'm sure somebody will mention weakness targeting, but current weakness targeting means having a material (I don't think cold iron or silver shrapnel bombs exist), good (gm fiat or specific backstory needed for uncommon), fire or cold. Or a gm that creates custom creatures with weaknesses tailored to let you flex, but that's never a good bet.
Aside from bombs all alch has going for it is item crafting. Since the above issues with proficiency and stats still apply anything you craft is probably better consumed or used by a character with a better proficiency track or stat allocation or skill proficiency for the situation. Will the alch themself be the right target sometimes? Of course, but I'd wager not often.
So, I'm pretty sure that, despite his tone, the guy describing it as the item dispenser class has it right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those feats require you to actually land a direct hit with a bomb?
You are incorrect.
The biggest damage boost from alchemist feats augment splash damage, which "hits" on a miss.
The Debilitating/Sticky bomb lines do require direct hits, as does Artokus Fire, but Expanded/Calculated Splash are more reliable and honestly have a bigger effect, as you don't overwrite splash damage like you do persistent damage.
Edit: Mind, this does not solve the OP's issue, which is until you have a good supply of bombs, getting even splash damage takes up far too many resources for what is, at low levels, a minimal effect.
Alchemists definitely need some kind of cantrip effect that works with their alchemy. Like a level 0 perpetual item of some sort that takes up no infused reagents but can only be crafted by an alchemist. Even if it did a bare minimum effect, like an Alchemist Marble that dealt only 1 splash damage and 1 direct damage, that would at least get you going as bomber.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact of the matter is every other class can attack with their main stat all day but the alchemist is out of ammo in a round or two if they play for damage. If bomb was a two action activity that had damage that scaled like a cantrip starting at level 1(and a similar repeated use mutagen, elixer and poison for the other specialties) alchemist would be so much better.
The fact of the matter is every other class can attack with their main stat all day but the alchemist is out of ammo in a round or two if they play for damage. If bomb was a two action activity that had damage that scaled like a cantrip starting at level 1(and a similar repeated use mutagen, elixer and poison for the other specialties) alchemist would be so much better.
At 1st level, yes. By 5th you have enough reagents for about 20-25 bombs (27 if you went full bombs, but I'm assuming you're using some your reagents for mutagens and elixirs), and at 7th you're good to go all day long if you use your prepared bombs for your first strike and perpetual alchemy for any follow-up in the same round.
This is not to say there's no room for improvement. I think enduring alchemy should be baked into Double Brew, for example. And the cantrip-ish consumable I mentioned in my last post would go a long way to helping low level play. And bombing takes up way too many feats; some should just be part of the bomber research field or combined.
I'm less well versed in toxicologist, so I won't criticize that one. I'll assume the other people posting as correct.
Edit: Question, can you use additive feats on your perpetual items? I don't see any reason why not, but it feels like too much of a good thing that you can, say, always use debilitating bomb whenever you use perpetual infusion, as anything you can make without reagents is automatically low enough to trigger the effect.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist is suffering at low levels. They really don’t start picking up traction until level 7-8 at the earliest (though some could argue for as late as level 11). Playing one in AV is just ill-advised.
What can you do to make yourself better at low levels? Ehhh... not really much. You can get wizard or witch dedication and get electric arc yourself, or get archer dedication and grab a bow. Throwing 2 bombs a round is bad resource efficiency wise, but hey the rest of your stuff doesn’t really do anything at low levels either - too short durations for the cost, and poison doesn’t last long enough because things have too low hp at low levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Question, can you use additive feats on your perpetual items? I don't see any reason why not, but it feels like too much of a good thing that you can, say, always use debilitating bomb whenever you use perpetual infusion, as anything you can make without reagents is automatically low enough to trigger the effect.
I don't see why reason why you couldn't, either, and have been assuming you can.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those feats require you to actually land a direct hit with a bomb? The alch isn't hitting anything remotely threatening with any regularity between their awful proficiency and not having a max attacking stat. The bombs are more like a consolation prize rather than anything to praise or be excited about.
So, by level 10, you can get splash damage up to 7, versus a level 11 alchemist fire's average damage of 13.5 + 3 persistent + 8 splash. That averages out to getting about a quarter of your damage out on a fail.
For comparison, that's like getting Fighter's Certain Strike on every hit, and by level 13, you Certain Strike in a 15-foot radius. I don't think I need to state how powerful that is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you know, normally I drop by with something like "you guys are playing Alchemist very wrong"
I've seen you say this multiple times but I have yet to find a post or guide that tells anyone how to play the Alchemist right.
Do you have a source for this kind of information? I have my own take on the class, but I'm always curious to read other player's thoughts.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the original question, the alchemist and most casters are very resource starved and thus of limited effectiveness at lower levels. Spending your highly limited resources frivolously, such as using two bombs per turn, will make this even worse. The Bard in particular is an exception, as Inspire Courage is an incredible buff you can do all the time, so you are always useful. This gets better rather quickly, as these classes gain more resources. By level 5 at the latest your friend should have a comfortable amount of stuff to play with.
---
Beyond that, from all released classes so far, the Alchemist is the only one I have fundamental problems with. Take all of this with a pinch of salt, as these issues have prevented me from playing this class for more than a couple of levels.
It is designed like as a sort of non-magcial equivalent of a caster, with all the sacrifices in the proficiency department that come with that. However, instead of an increasing number of more and more powerful spells, it gets more numerous items that are individually less powerful, but (more or less) automatically scale. It varies by the individual items and spells, but that is generally how I see it. And that is absolutely fine for the non-combat side of things.
The myriad problems rear their ugly head the second you enter combat. Right out of the gate comes the accuracy problem everyone is rightfully talking about. On the support side of things, all your stuff has to be hand-delivered to your buddies, without options like Reach Spell or inherent spell ranges. Combine that with the fact that you have to be level 7 to get your own version of cantrips, a discount version at that. The less I talk about Quick Alchemy and additives the better for my heart rate - great concept, but oh do I hate it in practice.
Yes, many of those and other things can be mitigated with feats, but that is honestly the worst part. They are pretty cool for the most part, but it always feels like I'm more shoring up weaknesses than increasing my potential. I feel like I'm playing catch-up with everyone else.
The class is not unplayable or anything, especially once you get into the "mid-game". But I always feel like I could just replace myself with a proper caster and be more effective. Supporting you allies is nice and all, but I can also do that as a caster just fine and still have a much bigger direct impact in combat. The feat thing is also a major turn-off for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be pretty cool if there was an item or method for allowing a 1st level alchemist to "sprinkle" one bomb throughout a combat. Maybe an alchemical aspergillum. Just something so it's not so obvious to try to play a race that gets you an arcane cantrip.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about it, the more I really do want a suite of perpetual, alchemist only items.
Like:
-the Marble I mentioned upthread
-an Ampule that heals 1 hp or counts as "particularly appropriate action to assist in ending persistent damage" in order to get the 5 point bonus on the flat check.
-an injury poison with a 2 round duration
-some kind of mutagen that provides an item bonus to attack rolls or damage for 5 rounds
-A bullet that deals an additional 1 point of fire damage on hit, or is inherently magical in damage.
Just something an alchemist can always pull out with no notice that is generally good for all situations, but minor enough that they'll set them aside the second they can.
And by preference not locked to your research field. I want these to be something that would allow an alchemist to feel like they're using all the tools in their kit, even before they have enough infusions to truly pull that off.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a similar vein to what Karmagator is saying, Alchemist is the Item-Mage, however consumable items are kinda trash this edition (so far, at least) so they over-pay in design budget for what they get.
Whereas spells have decent enough design parameters to adjust with new books, there seems to be something in the way items are designed that makes them much weaker (or at least, horrifically overpriced) than they seem to be intended to be.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think alchemist is definitely a hard class. Consider:
If you make a fighter, the signposts are pretty obvious. You like big 2H weapons? Power Attack wants to have a talk. You want to do 2WF? Double Slice will tell you to get an agile off-hand weapon. If you follow the obvious clues you'll end up with a fully functional fighter build.
Alchemist.. not so much. You like bombs so you picked Bomber and Quick Bombs. And then it turns out you run out of fuel really fast and aren't actually doing spectacular damage. What gives? What do you mean throwing bombs wasn't what you were supposed to be doing most of the time?
That doesn't mean alchemists are hopeless. I spent a day kitting out my investigator with alchemical sciences, selecting formulas based on "when I need it, it'll make a BIG difference". Like being able to pull out a silversheen bottle if we get surprised by a devil. Alchemists are special in that they're somewhat in between prepared and spontaneous casters - they can get multiples of whatever they need right now like a spontaneous caster, but know many many many recipes like a prepared one.
Coming back to the bomber. Imagine two adventures. In the first, the party is doing some urban adventure with lots of human enemies with no special resistances or weaknesses. Bombs aren't all that great. In the second adventure the party runs into a bunch of zombies and the alchemist splashes all of them with ghost charge bombs, triggering their weakness to positive damage. Later the party runs into a swarm and the alchemist throws some bombs to trigger splash weakness, again even on a miss. Next he runs into a troll and can turn off its regeneration even on a miss, due to splash damage. Faced with a protean with regeneration: lawful, he actually needs a direct hit with an alignment ampoule but who else even has lawful damage available on short notice?
Now, both of these adventures are valid - the urban one with predictable vanilla enemies, and the wonky one with lots of enemies that need to be hit in really specific ways. In one of them the alchemist is lackluster, in the other he's Batman. At least, assuming the player did all the prerequisite research and build planning.
So yeah, a harder class, and not good in all adventures, but it does have potential.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist carries over too many PF1 design complexities without enough upside. It's very clunky and has tons of seemingly arbitrary roadblocks and taxes which just make it less of a smooth experience than most other classes. Mostly when I read it I get frustrated at how many nitpicky decisions were made with it, and how much cross-referencing is required to play it. Bomber is alright once you get a few levels in, but it struggles with resources for a while.
Per the OP here, I'm mostly looking at this from a newer player perspective, and the class is frankly a mess.
---
Keeping track of a formula book can be a pain in the ass. You don't automatically learn higher item level recipes for all of your formulae, just two every level (unless you get new ones), so if you want to upgrade your arsenal you need to go back through every formula and learn the higher level formula. The initial dynamic between reviewing the Alchemical Crafting feat and the class feature can be confusing too, and you need to read every feature carefully to understand which item types you're getting from Alchemical Crafting, from your formula book, and from your research field. You also need to remember your signature items, which you get three of when you make with advanced alchemy, and when you level you can swap signature items with other potential signature items in your research field (as long as they're already in your formula book). Just typing that out was a laundry list of caveats.
From a beginner standpoint, infused reagents and advanced alchemy and quick alchemy are a lot of text to wrap your head around. Once you figure it out it's not so bad, but it is not an elegant design and ends up being a lot of micro-management. This can easily bog down newer players. You start the day with a bunch of reagents. You make items at the beginning of the day, and they come in batches of two, unless they're signature items. Then you have quick alchemy, which you have to remember only lasts until your next turn, and only lets you make one item instead of two or three. I actually think this part is where alchemist shines, but it's a few layers into mastering the class before you realize that you need a balance between advanced alchemy and quick alchemy reagents. You also need to keep an eye out for the additive trait, because that number dictates whether you need to make a weaker version of the item so it can have an additive and not exceed your advanced alchemy level.
Then item bonuses are everywhere, so there's a lot of double-checking you need to do to make sure things are stacking correctly, like alchemist goggles being an item bonus and not stacking with the inherent item bonus that bombs themselves give, or mutagens giving item bonuses and not interacting with your armor (e.g. drakeheart mutagen) or things like handwraps.
Once you get those basics under your belt, you need to check errata, because if you're looking at your special edition print version of the Core Rulebook from 2019 you would think that alchemists don't get medium armor. They do now, though. Powerful Alchemy is just a thing you get at 5th level. Signature Items I mentioned earlier? Also not in my physical rulebook. Mutagenic Flashback isn't there either.
Now we get to take feat taxes like Far Lobber or Quick Bomber, or else deal with very clunky action economy as a Bomber. You also have to remember that you have two hands, and probably need your alchemist tools in a bandolier so you can use quick alchemy. If you're a Chirurgeon you have to talk to your DM about Battle Medicine, which has been errata'd too to require holding/wearing healer's tools, which you probably also want in a bandolier so you can have a hand free, though the Cleric is going to be rocking big fat heals while you putz around with your janky elixirs of life until like level 13. Do you need to be trained in Medicine to use Crafting to heal? Better ask your DM to see which forum posts they've been following
And then after all of that you... get to do maybe as well as another class, probably less well unless you really know what you're doing, all while tracking your caveat-laden sheet of errata. Or use Pathbuilder which, if you're like me, means you need to buy some sort of Android device (I bought a crappy little Fire tablet and had to download Google Play to download it off of Google Play) or emulate it on your computer (lol). Can you do well? Yeah, if you're a Bomber. Probably. After, like, five levels. I think Toxicologists can do alright too because poisons are pretty decent on the whole.
So to answer OP's question, low-level alchemists aren't really worth the hassle from what I've seen of my players. Every player who has played one has swapped, usually around level 2-3 (although one player likes my homebrew and has been going steady with it!). They can be viable but have resource problems, and at a certain point I think most players who aren't dedicated to really giving alchemist a shot are going to consider another class with fewer hoops and less complex design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist is a complex class, imho, but one with a flavour that I really really like and I'm definitely looking forward to playing one. (I have my new 1st Level Alchemist Bomber signed up for a PFS session this Thursday.)
The first thing I think that people need to accept when playing Alchemists in combat is that because you have access to Mutagens, Paizo has built the combat balance around Alchemists always using them. I fully expect my Bomber to be tripping out on Quicksilver Mutagen, with all of its aches & pains, during pretty much every combat.
With QM, my L1 Int 18, Dex 16 Bomber has as good a chance to hit with his bomb as any Rogue does with a shortbow. At L2, he'll fall behind, as he will at Levels 5, 6 & 10. But he stays even at L3 & 4, and actually pulls ahead for levels 7-9. Not bad for a non-Martial class for half of his career.
(Mind you, the Non-Fighter Martials can keep even for levels 7-9. Just get Alchemist Dedication at L2 or 4 and Expert Alchemy at L6. Fighters, well Fighters are always gonna be ahead with Proficiency bonuses. That's their thing.)
Resource wise, you're going to have to accept that as a Bomber, you're going to run out. As a Mutagenist, you'll probably run out, but not of Mutagens. After all, even Lesser Mutagens last a minute, and not many fights go over 10 rounds. Spend two batches of reagents on your favourite Mutagens and you're likely good for the day.
So you plan. Nice thing about Quicksilver Mutagen... it applies just as well to anything Ranged, not just Bombs. So I'm planning to use my sling fairly often for the first while. Probably upgrade to a crossbow or shortbow moving forward.
It's why I think Quick Bomber is not that great a feat, really. It just encourages you to run through your Bombs faster at low levels. I'm planning on picking it up at 5th through Halfling Ancestry feats.
Damage wise, you're never going to be doing massive damage, but you can do respectable, and you can do a decent variety. Blight Bombs and Acid Flasks do the most, thanks to high persistent damage. Bottled Lightning has a nice flat-footed effect. Ghost Charges affect immaterial, which can be very nice indeed.
But all told, I think it's a really interesting class that you can have a lot of fun with. Patience is required. Not as much patience as playing a 1st Level Wizard in D&D 3.5, but patience nonetheless.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist carries over too many PF1 design complexities without enough upside. It's very clunky and has tons of seemingly arbitrary roadblocks and taxes which just make it less of a smooth experience than most other classes. Mostly when I read it I get frustrated at how many nitpicky decisions were made with it, and how much cross-referencing is required to play it. Bomber is alright once you get a few levels in, but it struggles with resources for a while.
Per the OP here, I'm mostly looking at this from a newer player perspective, and the class is frankly a mess.
---
Keeping track of a formula book can be a pain in the ass. You don't automatically learn higher item level recipes for all of your formulae, just two every level (unless you get new ones), so if you want to upgrade your arsenal you need to go back through every formula and learn the higher level formula. The initial dynamic between reviewing the Alchemical Crafting feat and the class feature can be confusing too, and you need to read every feature carefully to understand which item types you're getting from Alchemical Crafting, from your formula book, and from your research field. You also need to remember your signature items, which you get three of when you make with advanced alchemy, and when you level you can swap signature items with other potential signature items in your research field (as long as they're already in your formula book). Just typing that out was a laundry list of caveats.
From a beginner standpoint, infused reagents and advanced alchemy and quick alchemy are a lot of text to wrap your head around. Once you figure it out it's not so bad, but it is not an elegant design and ends up being a lot of micro-management. This can easily bog down newer players. You start the day with a bunch of reagents. You make items at the beginning of the day, and they come in batches of two, unless they're signature items. Then you have quick alchemy, which you have to remember only lasts until your next turn, and only lets...
This has been absolutely my experience as well. I played one from first to about 5th level and I just hated how comically useless I was. The bard did more reliable damage with cantrips while also providing constant, non-item-based buffs, and our rogue, the other ranged/dex-based/shortbow-wielding PC was just running circles around me.
I think I hit around 1/3rd of my bombs? So, you know... Rope? Lamp Oil? Bombs? You want 'em? I don't got em. Sorry Link.
I recommend to anyone wanting to play a damage focused science type to just go Investigator. Or a healing focused, since the Medicine focused method blows chirurgen out of the water especially ifyou take Medic archetype.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of alchemist I haven't played one myself, I prefer having a discreet bunch of options I can chose between on the fly than having to prepare (I tend to get option paralysis) and go for spells that are broadly likely to be useful even if their not optimal.
The alchemist tools all seem to niche and not flexible enough and they at least in early levels are mostly prepared casters. So not my cup of tea.
But it's really the lack of at will abities that made me feel sorry for the other power. I know that can be remidied with a wizard multiclass but it does seem a gaping whole.
Every alchemist player eventually arrive on the same conclusion. Some earlier, some later. But the fact is that the Alchemist's best fallback weapon is Electric Arc.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are certainly numerical problems with the alchemist, but I think the biggest problem is that they basically don't get to do anything new after about 5th level. They just get better versions of the stuff they already have. That's like playing a caster whose actual spell list ends after 2nd level, but they can still use higher-level slots to cast heightened spells.
Here's my theory on what happened with the alchemist. The 1e alchemist was basically a semi-caster, like the bard or the magus, except their spells were reskinned as "extracts" and they had to pay a feat* tax to be able to use them on others. The advantage of this is that spells are a known quantity, so it's reasonably easy to balance their access to extracts with the spellcasting of other classes. So there's no difference between getting Expeditous Retreat from drinking an alchemist's extracts or from having a wizard cast it on you.
For some reason, the devs didn't want the alchemist to stay a caster — either because the class setup didn't really support semi-casters, because their spell list didn't fit into the four traditions, or just because they wanted it to be something else. But this meant that alchemy had to use something other than spells, so they had to build a whole system around alchemical elixirs, tools, poisons, and bombs. So in PF2, there's a huge difference between a Cheetah's elixir and a Longstrider spell.
And since alchemist elixirs are available to anyone for plain old money, and because they are defined as non-magical, and because alchemists can use all their daily resources to make their best stuff, their best items can't really be that amazing. A 1st level wizard can cast Longstrider for +10 ft speed for one hour, but a 1st level alchemist can only make a lesser Cheetah's Elixir that gives +5 ft speed for one minute — but the alchemist can make ten of them, while the wizard can in theory only cast Longstrider four times.
But look at that comparison at, say, level 10. The alchemist can now make a Greater...
You're really making me miss the 1e Alchemist so much lol. It's the only class that cannot be the same character as they were in 1e, and it's a huge, glaring gap in an otherwise fantastic and balanced game.
I'm almost tempted to homebrew my own alchemist because it makes me so sad.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
you know, normally I drop by with something like "you guys are playing Alchemist very wrong"I've seen you say this multiple times but I have yet to find a post or guide that tells anyone how to play the Alchemist right.
Do you have a source for this kind of information? I have my own take on the class, but I'm always curious to read other player's thoughts.
I don't generally follow guides because I like to try to find my own way, so if there's good ones out there I'm probably not the best judge, but I found a couple of threads occasionally which pointed out things I generally agreed on, like this one. My own take on Alchemist was a Clawed Catfolk Mutagenist with a shield, but it's likely influenced by my time playing a Warpriest. Sword and Board is a good way to give a very strong early level to basically anyone, which is what alchemist is often claimed to lack.
Mostly, a good alchemist build needs to address a few main issues:
- you need a free hand for items
- you need a decent at-will attack or repeatable combat actions
- you need to address your combat role
- you need to quantify efficient use of reagents (namely, how much benefit you gain from each reagent, and how many rounds that lasts)
To me, that was solved by:
- natural weapon
- melee strikes, athletics, battle medicine
- offtank / healer
- buffs, mutagens, elixirs (for me and others). Bomb formulas for weakness sniping.
Those are solutions that work, and while you can find others, you have to find some. Any build that addresses those points will be good. Any build that doesn't will struggle.
Another potential valid concept could be
- bow for 1+handed combat
- ranged strikes, intimidate, knowledge
- ranged DPS / debuffer
- additive bombs for debuff/side damage, elixirs, utility.
Either way, expecting a limited resource to carry you for the whole day multiple times a turn is a contradiction, and everyone so far has agreed. The issue is that a lot of people refuse to accept that they're right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're really making me miss the 1e Alchemist so much lol. It's the only class that cannot be the same character as they were in 1e, and it's a huge, glaring gap in an otherwise fantastic and balanced game.
I'm almost tempted to homebrew my own alchemist because it makes me so sad.
Yeah there are a lot of them floating around. I made one that a player has been using and it's going well so far. Still complicated because the base class is janky, but the mutagenist has been enjoying making concentrated mutagens and living out their feral behemoth fantasy.
Well, the 1st Level Bomber in question would definitely been helped out a little bit by the Errata/2nd printing... could have gotten 12 bombs from the amount of reagents he spent on that day.
I'm curious as to which type of bomb he was throwing though. Acid Flask would do, on average, 1d6+2 the first round and then 2d6 more over the course of two more rounds. Alchemist Fire would be a d8+2 the first round, with 2 more damage over two more rounds on average. Bottled Lightning would be just a d6+1 damage, but you inflict that nice flat-footed condition. So, what was he using?
Now of course, if the Electric Arc is able to hit two targets, that can definitely feel more effective. Especially if they fail their saves (not guaranteed.)
As for his colleagues not using the Mutagens... well then, lesson learned, don't bother the next day. It doesn't *have* to be two actions... keep the bottle at hand, and it's only one. Still, an Alchemist ought to be using Mutagens themselves... the system pretty much demands it.
expecting a limited resource to carry you for the whole day multiple times a turn is a contradiction, and everyone so far has agreed. The issue is that a lot of people refuse to accept that they're right.Again this first level experience the alchemist had 8 bombs and 2 Mutagens (drakehert and jugernaut).
He once threw two bombs in a round as a desperation move (he hit twice it was still less effective than electric arc).
He got through two combats before being out of bombs.
And I am telling you that when you say this is a problem, YOU ARE RIGHT.
Limited use versatile damage type debuffing effects are not a general main damage avenue.As for people not wanting to take advantage of mutagens, well, can't fix lazy. You can technically use mutagens on other people (I'd flavour it as splashing them with chemicals rather than feeding it to them), but that's still taxing your actions when they can perfectly walk around with a vial in hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious as to which type of bomb he was throwing though. Acid Flask would do, on average, 1d6+2 the first round and then 2d6 more over the course of two more rounds. Alchemist Fire would be a d8+2 the first round, with 2 more damage over two more rounds on average. Bottled Lightning would be just a d6+1 damage, but you inflict that nice flat-footed condition. So, what was he using?
At 1st, those persistent damages aren't too exciting if you have a smart team that focus fires. Take a bunch of Goblin Warriors with 6 hp: unless the alchemist is the only one attacking one, it's unlikely to have the persistent damage matter. Same with area splashes where the few points of damage just end up being overkill when a bigger damage attack hits it.
As for his colleagues not using the Mutagens... well then, lesson learned, don't bother the next day. It doesn't *have* to be two actions... keep the bottle at hand, and it's only one. Still, an Alchemist ought to be using Mutagens themselves... the system pretty much demands it.
I've generally found no love for Mutagens without even taking the action cost into account: this seems to be because of the Drawbacks being significant and broad. This is especially true at 1st where the drawbacks tend to be LARGER then the benefit you gain... I know myself, I generally pass on them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something about an alchemist offering their class feature to someone and them just going "... no thanks." cracks me up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, expecting a limited resource to carry you for the whole day multiple times a turn is a contradiction, and everyone so far has agreed. The issue is that a lot of people refuse to accept that they're right.
It seems less an issue of not being able to accept it as fact and more an issue of not being very happy about it.
Either way, expecting a limited resource to carry you for the whole day multiple times a turn is a contradiction, and everyone so far has agreed. The issue is that a lot of people refuse to accept that they're right.It seems less an issue of not being able to accept it as fact and more an issue of not being very happy about it.
If they weren't happy about it they wouldn't be surprised about it.
I'm not happy about it, but I don't keep trying to make it do something it won't. I use it for the purpose it satisfies - the ability to apply debuffs as damage riders, the ability to determine my damage type on the spot, and the ability to affect multiple targets. I know it doesn't work as single target damage against targets without weakness, therefore I don't toss bombs when I know they won't be effective. I keep a few reagents handy in case I need them, prepare a bunch when I expect to make good use of them, and keep a couple bottled lightnings for the flatfooting, but if I need single target damage I will use a single target damage option.
THAT is what not being happy about it looks like.
Making the pikachu face when bombs turn out to not be good general single target damage attacks all day long looks like something else.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, expecting a limited resource to carry you for the whole day multiple times a turn is a contradiction, and everyone so far has agreed. The issue is that a lot of people refuse to accept that they're right.It seems less an issue of not being able to accept it as fact and more an issue of not being very happy about it.If they weren't happy about it they wouldn't be surprised about it.
I'm not happy about it, but I don't keep trying to make it do something it won't. I use it for the purpose it satisfies - the ability to apply debuffs as damage riders, the ability to determine my damage type on the spot, and the ability to affect multiple targets. I know it doesn't work as single target damage against targets without weakness, therefore I don't toss bombs when I know they won't be effective. I keep a few reagents handy in case I need them, prepare a bunch when I expect to make good use of them, and keep a couple bottled lightnings for the flatfooting, but if I need single target damage I will use a single target damage option.
THAT is what not being happy about it looks like.
Making the pikachu face when bombs turn out to not be good general single target damage attacks all day long looks like something else.
As a person who has wonderful memories of playing a bomber in 1st edition to great effect, I can reasonably say that the disappointment that I felt once I read, and then re-read out of incredulity, PF2's alchemist stems from losing a build. PF1 alchemist could definitely support a bombs all day playstyle, especially after 8th level when you got Fast Bombs. Sure, you didn't have all that many bombs at first level, but they also didn't compete with your other tools either. So going bomb heavy didn't stop you from also supporting your team, unless you just didn't take the feats discoveries necessary to support that role.
You had your level+INT in bombs/day on top of your reagents. Your bomb damage also scaled with your level, and their damage type was influenced by what discoveries you took rather than what specific item you were using.
In PF2 an Alchemist has to curate their list of formulas as Puna'chong stated to stay on parity. By making the bombs that a bomber alchemist use "normal" items, a situation has been created where Major Alchemist fire exists as a thing that anyone could buy, but nobody ever would at it's 2500gp price. It and it's contemporaries really only exists to give an alchemist an option for quick alchemy at level 17-20. The same arguably goes for any of the higher than lesser versions, though it feels like it gets worse as you move up tiers.
In PF2 you get your perpetuals at 7th that equate to about a 1st level cantrip. Unless you only plan on using them to trigger weaknesses, or you literally have nothing else to do, Perpetual bombs feel like a waste of design space.
Take all of this with a grain of salt though, since I have not played, nor had a player play, an all up alchemist in PF2. The Reason I haven't played one though is solely my up front feelings after having read the class. It just doesn't tick the same boxes that PF1 alchemist did for me.
This also doesn't mean that I in any way don't respect the opinions of anyone who does like the Alchemist in it's current state, or who have found a way to get around/adapt to their playstyle. It just means that the PF2 alchemist isn't for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
]I've generally found no love for Mutagens without even taking the action cost into account: this seems to be because of the Drawbacks being significant and broad. This is especially true at 1st where the drawbacks tend to be LARGER then the benefit you gain... I know myself, I generally pass on them.
Yeah many of them are just not worth it. When you have a power so weak its not worth its action cost, in the situation it's designed for, then you have a problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't generally follow guides because I like to try to find my own way, so if there's good ones out there I'm probably not the best judge, but I found a couple of threads occasionally which pointed out things I generally agreed on, like this one. My own take on Alchemist was a Clawed Catfolk Mutagenist with a shield, but it's likely influenced by my time playing a Warpriest. Sword and Board is a good way to give a very strong early level to basically anyone, which is what alchemist is often claimed to lack.
Mostly, a good alchemist build needs to address a few main issues:
- you need a free hand for items
- you need a decent at-will attack or repeatable combat actions
- you need to address your combat role
- you need to quantify efficient use of reagents (namely, how much benefit you gain from each reagent, and how many rounds that lasts)To me, that was solved by:
- natural weapon
- melee strikes, athletics, battle medicine
- offtank / healer
- buffs, mutagens, elixirs (for me and others). Bomb formulas for weakness sniping.
I just wanted to say thank you for your post. I mostly agree with it but also think this way of "fixing" the alchemist comes with its own problems.
But I don't want to add my thoughts to this topic. I was just really curious about yours.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write your post. I appreciate it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing a low level alchemist (levels 3-5) for a few months now, and I've only ran out of reagents once, and that waa at the end of the day, so I decided to just go ham.
Despite having the bomber field, I actually don't really focus on bomb spamming. Most of my reagents are spent on mutagens and elixirs; at my lowest level, I sniped with my hand crossbow with the aid of a quicksilver mutagen as my "bread and butter" turn, and save the bombs for when they'd have the most impact, for example, hitting the boss with a bottled lightning when my rogues are in stabbing range. At level 5, I actually have enough reagents, as well as a stock of consumables bought with party resources that I spend most of my turns just cracking items and cooking up silver bullets woth quick alchemy, with the lovely action economy aid of my manual dexterity familiar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a person who has wonderful memories of playing a bomber in 1st edition to great effect, I can reasonably say that the disappointment that I felt once I read, and then re-read out of incredulity, PF2's alchemist stems from losing a build. PF1 alchemist could definitely support a bombs all day playstyle, especially after 8th level when you got Fast Bombs. Sure, you didn't have all that many bombs at first level, but they also didn't compete with your other tools either. So going bomb heavy didn't stop you from also supporting your team, unless you just didn't take the
featsdiscoveries necessary to support that role.You had your level+INT in bombs/day on top of your reagents Your bomb damage also scaled with your level, and their damage type was influenced by what discoveries you took rather than what specific item you were using.
In PF2 an Alchemist has to curate their list of formulas as Puna'chong stated to stay on parity. By making the bombs that a bomber alchemist use "normal" items, a situation has been created where Major Alchemist fire exists as a thing that anyone could buy, but nobody ever would at it's 2500gp price. It and it's contemporaries really only exists to give an alchemist an option for quick alchemy at level 17-20. The same arguably goes for any of the higher than lesser versions, though it feels like it gets worse as you move up tiers.
In PF2 you get your perpetuals at 7th that equate to about a 1st level cantrip. Unless you only plan on using them to trigger weaknesses, or you literally have nothing else to do, Perpetual bombs feel like a waste of design space.
Take all of this with a grain of salt though, since I have not played, nor had a player play, an all up alchemist in PF2. The Reason I haven't played one though is solely my up front feelings after having read the class. It just doesn't tick the same boxes that PF1 alchemist did for me.
This also doesn't mean that I in any way don't respect the opinions of anyone who does like the Alchemist in it's current state, or who have found a way to get around/adapt to their playstyle. It just means that the PF2 alchemist isn't for me.
This reminded me of the time we had an Alchemist in our craziest campaign ever. We were in a tailor-made encounter that had monster hungers chasing our party, we had crazy monster templates on our characters, and they were really, really strong (one of them had an Advanced Firearm using silver bullets to wreck our vampire and our weretiger). The alchemist carried that fight. After my Wizard got downed and our Hunter downed one enemy, things went south.
Not for our Alchemist.
He landed some key bombs that completely saved our lives during that fight, both using debuffs (I think it was entangle) and some nasty damage. With Fast Bomb and his other feats, he was throwing several bombs and crushing the guys. It was great. The utility he offered was also very welcome, although a little rarer, since I focused a lot on support.
More important than deal a lot of damage, things worked and they felt cool.
Obviously any broken "optimized" build could have done better in that situation, but for an alchemist made by a player that only cared about getting essentials. It was damn cool and impressive.
him throwing two bombs (which ate a significant chuck of his resources).
Second once he ran out of bombs (which seemed to happen fairly quickly)
Guy goes to the doctor, says, "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor replies, "Don't do it, then."
I think the biggest issue with alchemist that I can perceive, having only GM'd for 2e and not had a chance to try and play one, is the fact that it's so fundamentally different from 1e. At the end of the day a lot of the 1e classes got translated fairly well to 2e, so that even if it didn't function exactly the same, you got pretty much the same fantasy fulfilled.
This isn't really happening with the Alchemist. Because of how clunky the 2e alchemist plays, instead of feeling more like a standard caster it ends up playing more like a resource management simulator than a caster-class. Can the alchemist be very potent? Yes. But it does so by requiring significantly more homework than every other class. It also doesn't have nearly the baseline ability that many other classes have, almost relying on running into enemies with weaknesses it can target in order to do any significant damage.
As a support class it does fairly well, and I honestly love the alchemist archetype for adding some extra flavor onto another class, but right now the Alchemist by itself feels unfortunately handicapped.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
him throwing two bombs (which ate a significant chuck of his resources).
Second once he ran out of bombs (which seemed to happen fairly quickly)
Guy goes to the doctor, says, "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor replies, "Don't do it, then."
LOL "well, the problem is that your Bomber actually thought the point of the class was to throw bombs... What was he thinking?" *hands him a crossbow* "What does he think he is, a caster that can cast spells every round?" :P
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day a lot of the 1e classes got translated fairly well to 2e, so that even if it didn't function exactly the same, you got pretty much the same fantasy fulfilled.
This isn't really happening with the Alchemist.
You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head, although I'm not sure in the way intended.
Very fundamentally, 1E and 2E are different games that happen to share the same name. PF2E is probably closer to D&D5e than PF1E, so having the 2E alchemist different from the 1E alchemist shouldn't be any more surprising than having the 2E alchemist different from a 5e alchemist. It only is because of the expectations set by the name.
To make matters more confusing, a lot of the play styles port over from 1E to 2E. So, a fighter arms themselves with a big weapon and hits things in 1E, and a fighter arms themselves with a big weapon and hits things in 2E. And because of general and specific confusion, people are tempted to make the parallels between all the other classes: spellcasters are "nerfed" from 1E, the divine spell list is "the weakest spell list", etc.
In 1E, the optimal strategy was to find a way to make a full-round attack for as many rounds as possible. Move and single attack, or make a 5' step and make 7 attacks? Easy answer. Cramming stuff into swift and free actions was key to preserving that full attack. That's where the concept of DPR (Damage Per Round) came from - what you did besides damage was mostly irrelevant, and the unit of measure was the round, because attacks per round was set by the class. The very idea that someone wouldn't take as many attacks as they were physically allowed was laughable in 1E.
Back to 2E. Philosophically, 2E is designed such that many classes have features that are most useful to other classes. The "item dispenser" label is used as a pejorative, but it's really accurate - the alchemist's most useful features are ones they can't themselves use. Their bomb damage is almost incidental.
People still think of 2E in the 1E ("every character for themselves" / "bring your own wand of cure light wounds") framework. People still use DPR (even though it's really not helpful because the attacks per round is constant now) to evaluate classes. To be fair, some thinking has evolved - increasingly, people realize that the 0 DPR healbot cleric isn't 0 worth, that reducing a BBE's actions from 3 to 2 reduces the value of the turn by WAY more than 1/3, etc. But people are still really bad at quantifying those measures.
How much is slowed worth? How much is flat-footed worth? What is more valuable, a 1-action 1d8 heal, or a 2-action 1d8+8 heal? I'll make a statement that I think most alchemists have determined experimentally at this point: the d6 bottled lightning is worth more than the d8 alchemist's fire in most cases. DPR is useless in this analysis, a better measure has to be developed.
One of the problems with alchemist is that it solves a lot of problems that people either don't have or don't realize they have. People shy away from enforcing environmental rules, they avoid underwater combat, maps are primarily drawn without cover, so all of the things that were considered "situational" in 1E ("situational" almost exclusively used as a pejorative) have been mostly considered a negative. But a huge strength of the alchemist is in that prepared/spontaneous interface where they have access to a prepared list but can spontaneously deliver situational items, so it's not surprising that people don't realize the value of darkvision on tap, and rather consider darkvision to be a personal problem rather than a group problem. Bring your own scroll/wand of darkvision, just like 1E!
If a campaign is a pre-arranged, stable group that engages in 4 combats/gameday and the success metric is the ability to survive to the end, I will gladly concede that the alchemist sucks. But if you were to choose 4-6 characters at random and gate successes behind a mix of relatively easy combats and a lot of skill-based checks (which is essentially PFS), the alchemist does pretty well.
The class does need work, but not to the degree that people commonly think, and definitely not in the areas that people commonly cite.
LOL "well, the problem is that your Bomber actually thought the point of the class was to throw bombs... What was he thinking?" *hands him a crossbow* "What does he think he is, a caster that can cast spells every round?" :Phim throwing two bombs (which ate a significant chuck of his resources).
Second once he ran out of bombs (which seemed to happen fairly quickly)
Guy goes to the doctor, says, "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor replies, "Don't do it, then."
The nomenclature is pretty unfortunate. People think a "bomber" should just throw three bombs a round and have an unlimited supply. But then again, people who watch movies think that fully automatic machine guns should be able to fire for more than 3 seconds without running out of ammo. It's about expectations.
My alchemist has a crossbow and 20 crossbow bolts - the same crossbow and the same 20 bolts that she purchased at 1st level. She did use her dagger once, though - this was the pre-ghost charge days, so she slashed a zombie rather than bombing it.