Errata 2 gets rid of the Powerful Alchemy feat and gives it to Alchemists for free. How does, or should, this affect the Poisoner Archetype? Do they still fuction as written?
Also, why doesn't Poisoner get a way to increase the DC of poisons they create? It seems like a pretty severe oversight. One solution could be the following.
Expert Poisoner:
Your advanced alchemy level for poison increases to your level – 3. You can change the DCs of your infused poisons to [10 + your advanced alchemy level + your Intelligence modifier] if it's higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Errata 2 gets rid of the Powerful Alchemy feat and gives it to Alchemists for free. How does, or should, this affect the Poisoner Archetype? Do they still fuction as written?
The archetype is still the same, since that change only applied to the Alchemist class. Poisoner might eventually be changed, but it wasn't in the errata because that was CRB errata, and not APG errata.
Also, why doesn't Poisoner get a way to increase the DC of poisons they create? It seems like a pretty severe oversight.
They can make higher level poisons from level 6 onwards, so the DCs somewhat scale. But yes, Poisoners have no way to actually scale poisons besides making higher level poisons. With the removal of the Powerful Alchemy feat in the Errata, the same happens to archetyped alchemists, so I'm guessing this is an intentional, albeit annoying omission.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poisoner is honestly just outright bad without scaling DC in general
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poisoner is honestly just outright bad without scaling DC in general
Can't say I disagree there. Poisons already need all the help they can to land since Fort tends to be a strong save for many monsters, and Poisoner does almost nothing to help them outside of Pinpoint Poisoner.
Really, poisons as a whole are in a terrible spot right now. (Mostly because the designated poison using class is a massive mess.)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main issues with poisons is that they don't do anything on a successful save, and save progression assumes those spells that still do something even on a success; spells that dont are typically repeatable, like focus cantrips or things like flaming sphere where you can sustain it once a turn.
Imo, poisons would be fine if a successful save did the effect of stage 1 for a full cycle and then immediately ended, and having a crit success be a full negation. Still not ideal for people buying poisons, but fine enough for alchemists and poisoners
Poisoner is honestly just outright bad without scaling DC in generalCan't say I disagree there. Poisons already need all the help they can to land since Fort tends to be a strong save for many monsters, and Poisoner does almost nothing to help them outside of Pinpoint Poisoner.
Really, poisons as a whole are in a terrible spot right now. (Mostly because the designated poison using class is a massive mess.)
So would you say you support my change suggestion?
edit: I just noticed that my suggestion doesn't include a proficiency bonus. Hmm... Maybe it should get an extra +2 or +4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably just keep it simple and make it the higher of class or spell DC
IMO, all these Basic Alchemy Benefits classes should be errataed anyways because as is, the dedication feats are dead feats for actual alchemists, who would definately get nice flavor expansion with them, but that's the subject of it's own thread
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably just keep it simple and make it the higher of class or spell DC
IMO, all these Basic Alchemy Benefits classes should be errataed anyways because as is, the dedication feats are dead feats for actual alchemists, who would definately get nice flavor expansion with them, but that's the subject of it's own thread
Yeah, very true point. Paizo definitely dropped the ball with Alchemy in PF2e. I honestly wouldn't be opposed to an Ultimate Alchemy full errata book to fix all of the issues.
Imo, my preferred fixes would be one of:
-treat basic alchemy benefits like spellcasters; you get all of the slots, but you can only use them with the archetypes. This would give the alchemist massive buttload of reagents, but casters can and do dip into other casting archetypes, so is this really an issue?
-If the answer to the above question is yes, give people who aleady have a reagent pool 2 reagents per feat from the archetype (including the dedication) that can only be used for the dedication. This prevents, say, an alchemist dipping 2 feats of herbalist to almost double their reagents and have a truckload of medicine, but still give the alchemist a little something for already being good at alchemy. Again, we dont make casters usee their base spell slots to prep spells from their dedications. I'd probably cap the extra reagents to 10, otherwise archetypes become the objectively better choice than mainline alchemist feats. This is actually my preferred solution, since it does encourage alchemists to look into these archetypes as a way to enhance their specialty in alchemy, and not just as a generic two feat dip to enhance their abilities.