PFS is a pretty specialized case that has a lot of structural elements that favor alchemists.
1. Every session the party changes. So the gap-filler types always have a place.
2. The combats are not very challenging, especially at low tier. So the alchemists aren't really punished for being a -1 or -2 off.
3. Out of combat skill checks unlock a lot of Secondaries and Treasure Bundles. So having access to all those silvertongues or eagle eyes or comprehension elixirs really shines.
For the infused poison DC bit.
"Alchemical items you create on the fly are particularly potent. When you use Quick Alchemy to create an infused alchemical item that allows a saving throw, you can change its DC to your class DC."
Thats at level 5 now as of that Eratta.
I believe somewhere it stated the infused/quick items are temporary but effects are long lasting.
So if you quick create a poison. Use the poison to poison a weapon. That poisoend weapon exists past the duration of Quick Alchemy right?
So that is an Expensive way to do things No?
The rules are dead silent on that.
The issue is that if the poison doesn't disappear after one round, then it doesn't disappear at all, opening the door to some shenanigans if you have a bit of downtime, like poisoning a quiver of arrows and still get your full bunch of reagents the next day.So, as a player and at my table, I consider that the poison has to be used in the one round/one day time limit.
As a side note, using Quick Alchemy for poison is super expensive, and Perpetual Infusions give ridiculous poisons I'd prefer to ignore.
And most poisons have DCs that are equivalent and sometimes higher than your own DC. And there's the feat Potent Poisoner that can also be put to good use at high level.
So, I don't think it's much of a big deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think perpetual infused poisons would need some adjustments.
As much as I like the Alchemist, I can't ignore that the class is full of dead abilities and trap options. At least, with Perpetual Poisons, it's obvious. When I see the number of people who desperately hang on Perpetual Sticky Bombs just to discover that they don't even compete with Electric Arc...
The only valid Perpetual Infusions are the Chirurgeon ones (weak but always on). Perpetual Bombs are just a few bucks saved on a runed crossbow for when you run out of alchemical items, Perpetual Mutagens are giving the same bonuses than items you can get at your level and Perpetual Poisons are not even worth an action.As a side note, maybe I like the Alchemist because it's a class full of dead abilities and crappy options. Building an Alchemist feels a bit like going to an antique shop. There's a whole bunch of crap, awful items you would not see in your toilets and suddenly you find this very special item which exactly fits in your bedroom and serves multiple specific purposes. And you add it to your character sheet with a large smile while your neighbour thinks that people are crazy to buy so awful things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't perpetual bombs good enough because of the debilitating bomb feat?
If you want to debuff with bombs, the shortest path is Bird Animal Companion. It is fully functional at level 2 and it is better than the level 18 Debilitating feat. On top of that you get an Animal Companion which is extremely handy at low levels to increase your damage output at no reagent cost.
Debilitating Bombs are another bunch of trap options.
Aren't perpetual bombs good enough because of the debilitating bomb feat?If you want to debuff with bombs, the shortest path is Bird Animal Companion. It is fully functional at level 2 and it is better than the level 18 Debilitating feat. On top of that you get an Animal Companion which is extremely handy at low levels to increase your damage output at no reagent cost.
Debilitating Bombs are another bunch of trap options.
Dang, that is nifty, isn't it. You can have both an animal companion and a familiar, right?
It is especially nice because splash damage still counts as "dealing damage with a strike," so you're pretty much guaranteed to get the support benefit. Taking bomber just to do this is tempting.
Aren't perpetual bombs good enough because of the debilitating bomb feat?If you want to debuff with bombs, the shortest path is Bird Animal Companion. It is fully functional at level 2 and it is better than the level 18 Debilitating feat. On top of that you get an Animal Companion which is extremely handy at low levels to increase your damage output at no reagent cost.
Debilitating Bombs are another bunch of trap options.Dang, that is nifty, isn't it. You can have both an animal companion and a familiar, right?
It is especially nice because splash damage still counts as "dealing damage with a strike," so you're pretty much guaranteed to get the support benefit. Taking bomber just to do this is tempting.
I mean this feels absolutely unintended, but now a Ranger MCD Alchemist is pretty fire...
For the infused poison DC bit.
"Alchemical items you create on the fly are particularly potent. When you use Quick Alchemy to create an infused alchemical item that allows a saving throw, you can change its DC to your class DC."
Thats at level 5 now as of that Eratta.
Yes, any alchemist can use Quick Alchemy to create a poison, poison their weapon, and attack with it. The poison would use the Class DC if it is higher than the poison's listed DC, so a level 1 poison would still be relevant at higher levels - though probably for the conditions that it inflicts rather than the trivial amount of damage it deals.
But doing this is very action consuming. I'm not even sure if it can be completed in one 3-action turn. I don't remember off-hand how many actions it takes to apply poison to a weapon. If it is more than 1, you will need haste in order to make it work. Enduring Alchemy would let you make the attacks with the weapon on your next turn also. Meaning you could re-try a missed attack in order to land the poison (other than ranged weapons where you would poison the ammunition and lose it after the first attack).
For Toxicologist specifically, they get that Class DC replacement for their low level poisons to poisons that they create with Advanced Alchemy also. Which means that you can pre-poison your (or your ally's) weapons before the battle.
I believe somewhere it stated the infused/quick items are temporary but effects are long lasting.
So if you quick create a poison. Use the poison to poison a weapon. That poisoend weapon exists past the duration of Quick Alchemy right?
So that is an Expensive way to do things No?All of that assuming I'm remembering right that effects of quick alchemy last longer than the item. Persistent damage exists as would fire set by it. So I assume a poisoned weapon works since that's an effect of the poison item?
I wouldn't run Quick Alchemy poisons this way. If the poison doesn't become inert at the end of the Quick Alchemy duration, when does it?
For other effects like damage or persistent damage, it has a specified duration - for damage it is permanent, for persistent damage it is until the affected character removes the persistent damage. Conditions have a listed duration too.
That does sound like a pretty neat combo.
Having GM'd for an alchemist from 1-20 with no archetypes taken it seemed like a fine class. Numbers-wise they may not do as well as other classes but I can't think of many times in the campaign where they didn't have something reasonably potent to do. Sheer versatility and a slew of on-level consumables made for a few cases where they removed an obstacle for the whole party completely, dealt more damage than the fighter with weaknesses, and kept the party up with respectable healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But people who didn't like the Alchemist to begin with still don't like the Alchemist now. Go figure.Instead of a snarky "go figure" as if these people's complaints were without merit, a more constructive approach would be:
But people who didn't like the Alchemist to begin with still don't like the Alchemist now. The class will probably never be able to compete; Paizo's goal is just to bring it up to minimal effectiveness.
I second those recommending new players to play something else first, and save their idea to play an Alchemist until they better know what they're getting into.
Cheers
I find it fascinating that the first four replies on this thread ignored the statement from the OP that they already played an alchemist and enjoyed it and were indulging in pure Alchemist Bashing. Yet I am the one you call out for being 'snarky'.
I find it fascinating that the first four replies on this thread ignored the statement from the OP that they already played an alchemist and enjoyed it and were indulging in pure Alchemist Bashing. Yet I am the one you call out for being 'snarky'.
How do folks fe el about Alchemists now? It was my main class framework before. It had some weirdness but i still enjoyed it.
So I'd love if folks had any opinions on Alchemists now they'd care to share.
To which the opinion/feeling of "this class is bad and should be avoided" was immediately shared. To expand on my opinion:
The alchemist can do just about everything and do it somewhere between poorly and average. You're better off picking a class with a proper niche they can excel in and using multiclass feats for alchemy to take some advantage of that versatility or if you really like the idea of being an alchemist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean this feels absolutely unintended, but now a Ranger MCD Alchemist is pretty fire...
I think it's very much intended. The companions that ask for a hit are all dealing 1d8 damage with their Strikes. Those that only ask for damage are in majority dealing 1d6 damage. I think they separated the companions between damage dealers and supporters.
Also, besides bombs, the only easily accessible way of dealing damage with a failed Strike is Swashbuckler's Confident Finisher, which is far from overpowered. So I think Paizo really thought about that.
It feels overpowered compared to Debilitating Bombs, but it's because Debilitating Bombs are in a bad place: on top of being very random, they ask for 4 feats, including an 18th level feat that just make them barely functional.
The combo with the Bird is nice and I used it a few times. But I've never seen anyone complaining that it was imbalanced.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're better off picking a class with a proper niche they can excel in
This warrants some scrutiny.
The best example of your statement in practice is PF1, where it was definitely the case that characters picked a lane and really excelled. As a matter of fact, it was so successful it became a design problem - how does Paizo set a DC where one person in the party can hit with a nat 1, while nobody else in the party can hit with a nat 20?
It was one of the explicit design goals of PF2 to make fewer characters that good at something. Nobody gets 7 attacks and autohits the first 5; nobody takes 10 on Perception and autosucceeds finding every trap. No more "emotionally detached, 6 CHA, wake me up when something needs killing, 155 DPR, 1 skill rank per level, martial combatants."
You may like it - or you may hate it. But either way, it's intentional. So fighting it is, fundamentally, going against the grain of what Paizo is trying to do.
My former (work-based) PF1 group says they hate it; I'm the only one who played PF2 more than once. But I've also pointed out that the main player (who taught us all to play) also spends a bunch of personal effort accomplishing the same goals they claim to hate, by screening feats and archetypes for "rules bloat," making sure they aren't game-breaking. They seem to disagree about the solution, but agree on the problem.
So, in light of all this, my question is why people are so adamant about finding niches and specializing? In some contexts, like PFS, it's basically the opposite - there are way more examples of a group needing 4 of 6 PCs to pass a low DC than there are examples of a group needing 1 PC to pass a high DC. In most contexts, I think finding niches and specializing is slightly positive - not neutral, but not very positive, either.
Going back one sentence in your quote, I think it's absolutely true that the "alchemist can do just about everything and do it somewhere between poorly and average." I just don't see that as a condemnation of the class. Half the classes are below average; half the characters are below average. A well-built alchemist makes average choices instead of poor choices, and ends up average. Not sure what else could be expected - that every class gets to be above average?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alchemist can do just about everything and do it somewhere between poorly and average.
I'm reacting to this sentence as in my opinion the reality of the Alchemist is a bit different.
The Alchemist can do just about everything and do it somewhere between poorly and incredibly.An Alchemist can easily outdamage a Fighter and outheal a Cleric. It doesn't ask for much feats. But it can only do so if the situation is properly set up.
One third of the monsters have an exploitable weakness. When hitting a weakness, an Alchemist outdamages any ranged character.
An Alchemist can heal as much as a maxed two-action Heal. But for that you need your ally to be next to you when you start your turn.
People take common situations to judge the Alchemist: on average, you won't be able to exploit a weakness. In general, your ally requiring healing won't be next to you.
But if a character is able to succesfully exploit a high number of situations, judging it by considering a case where they can't exploit the situation is not judging them properly.
That's also why I consider specialized Alchemists as bad. They slightly improve their ability to exploit one situation at the cost of losing the ability to exploit a whole bunch of other situations. On average, they're plain bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if we're looking for examples in-system,
Nobody out-fights the fighter. Inherent +2 to hit, heavy armor, good saves and a few good feats make them the gold standard for martials in the system.
Champion is the most durable martial with their +2 AC, and lay on hands. They're also the best second martial with their reaction giving other close allies more durability along with some other effect.
Monk has the best saves, is second only to champion in AC and the best single action damage in the game.
Bard is considered the best at debuffing and pretty good at buffing too.
Cleric is the best healer in the game.
Sorcerer is the best at casting spells (as long as you pick good spells).
Druid is the mirror of the alchemist. Average or better at just about everything.
Make a party with any 4 of those classes and it'll be better than any 3 plus alchemist. A party of 5 will look even worse for the alch and a party of 6 is just embarrassing.
But you make a good point with PFS. In a format where the biggest challenge is having no idea what your party composition will be, the alchemist will at least be able to fill any holes. But then again, the druid will do that better too.
Are animal companions open season? Or is it a multiclass result?The combo with the Bird is nice and I used it a few times. But I've never seen anyone complaining that it was imbalanced.
Anyone can get one with the Beast Master archetype.
I mean this feels absolutely unintended, but now a Ranger MCD Alchemist is pretty fire...I think it's very much intended. The companions that ask for a hit are all dealing 1d8 damage with their Strikes. Those that only ask for damage are in majority dealing 1d6 damage. I think they separated the companions between damage dealers and supporters.
Well sure, but I don't think the assumption is that Splash damage would qualify as "dealing damage from your Strikes".
Does it technically qualify per RAW? Sure.
But if your asking me if I think the developers intended to allow an Alchemist with a Bird Animal Companion to effectively have the ability to apply Bleed damage to 9 creatures at once (technically possible), I would wager the answer to that is "no they did not".
Also, besides bombs, the only easily accessible way of dealing damage with a failed Strike is Swashbuckler's Confident Finisher, which is far from overpowered. So I think Paizo really thought about that.
Again, dealing damage the bleed to a single target as a result of the Strike, that makes sense.
Splash damage counting as part of the Strike for the purposes of dealing damage, that to me seems like unintended (it's literally something only Bombs do, and its dubious IMO to consider Splash damage as part of the Strike result).
It feels overpowered compared to Debilitating Bombs, but it's because Debilitating Bombs are in a bad place: on top of being very random, they ask for 4 feats, including an 18th level feat that just make them barely functional.
It seems overpowered regardless of Bombs. A Bomber with Calculated Splash and a Bird has a DPS increase that puts them overall around a Fighter (they were on par with every martial due to Splash damage applying on failure before).
We'll have to agree to disagree on it being "intended" that Splash triggers the support action.
I mean this feels absolutely unintended, but now a Ranger MCD Alchemist is pretty fire...I think it's very much intended. The companions that ask for a hit are all dealing 1d8 damage with their Strikes. Those that only ask for damage are in majority dealing 1d6 damage. I think they separated the companions between damage dealers and supporters.Well sure, but I don't think the assumption is that Splash damage would qualify as "dealing damage from your Strikes".
Does it technically qualify per RAW? Sure.
But if your asking me if I think the developers intended to allow an Alchemist with a Bird Animal Companion to effectively have the ability to apply Bleed damage to 9 creatures at once (technically possible), I would wager the answer to that is "no they did not".
Also, besides bombs, the only easily accessible way of dealing damage with a failed Strike is Swashbuckler's Confident Finisher, which is far from overpowered. So I think Paizo really thought about that.
Again, dealing damage the bleed to a single target as a result of the Strike, that makes sense.
Splash damage counting as part of the Strike for the purposes of dealing damage, that to me seems like unintended (it's literally something only Bombs do, and its dubious IMO to consider Splash damage as part of the Strike result).
It feels overpowered compared to Debilitating Bombs, but it's because Debilitating Bombs are in a bad place: on top of being very random, they ask for 4 feats, including an 18th level feat that just make them barely functional.It seems overpowered regardless of Bombs. A Bomber with Calculated Splash and a Bird has a DPS increase that puts them overall around a Fighter (they were on par with every martial due to Splash damage applying on failure before).
We'll have to agree to disagree on it being "intended" that Splash triggers the support action.
The wording of the bird's support benefit only calls out 'a creature that your bird threatens.' It doesn't say any , all, or creatureS which suggests it's only intended to affect a single enemy anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the bird companion's support ability affecting every splash target falls clearly, and firmly, under the "too good to be true" category, after all, the very proposition did include the fact that it was better than an 18th level feat.
RAI, I think the clear action here is the bird companion trying to gouge the eyes of the owner's target. Removing yourself from the mechanics of things a little bit and visualizing what it is supposed to represent makes judgement easier for a GM.
Regardless, I think it's still pretty decent and at my table I would allow the support benefit for the targeted creature only, not all splash targets. Alchemists need all the help they can get and this one is particularly flavorful AND interesting.
In a format where the biggest challenge is having no idea what your party composition will be, the alchemist will at least be able to fill any holes. But then again, the druid will do that better too.
The holes that are difficult to fill are skill-based. INT-based characters, plus rogues, have an edge because of the sheer number of skills they can cover.
When 4 of 6 need to pass a Survival check or the whole party gets lost, the "tipping point" PCs (the ones that make or break the group success) are the alchemists and wizards who need nat 9-11s to hit (and took Survival as their 7th or 8th skill), not the rangers and druids who hit with nat 6-8s (and took Survival as their 1st or 2nd skill).
For those that follow US politics, they're the Wisconsins and Pennsylvanias of the PFS Electoral College.
The wording of the bird's support benefit only calls out 'a creature that your bird threatens.' It doesn't say any , all, or creatureS which suggests it's only intended to affect a single enemy anyway.
While I agree, the wording leans that direction, it states pretty plainly
"Until the start of your next turn, your Strikes that damage a creature that your bird threatens also deal 1d4 persistent bleed damage, and the target is dazzled until it removes the bleed damage."
That already means that if I for some reason had multiple Strikes in the same turn targetting two creatures that are adjacent to the Bird, that it would apply to both of those targets if I dealt damage.
Now of course the difference is my second attack has MAP, I'm not guaranteed damage on either Strike, and my bird has to be in melee against two targets.
But technically a Strike with a Bomb did deal splash damage to any targets in a square.
And if my bird occupied the square above my target, by RAW I get bleed damage on every target in a 3x3 square beneath the bird if I deal splash damage to them.
To me, the bird companion's support ability affecting every splash target falls clearly, and firmly, under the "too good to be true" category, after all, the very proposition did include the fact that it was better than an 18th level feat.
RAI, I think the clear action here is the bird companion trying to gouge the eyes of the owner's target. Removing yourself from the mechanics of things a little bit and visualizing what it is supposed to represent makes judgement easier for a GM.
Regardless, I think it's still pretty decent and at my table I would allow the support benefit for the targeted creature only, not all splash targets. Alchemists need all the help they can get and this one is particularly flavorful AND interesting.
I agree entirely. It's quite obviously way too strong. I mean there isn't even a save against the dazzled condition.
I not only think a GM that doesn't allow it is well within their right, but more than likely preserving balance. A Ranger with Quickdraw, Flurry, and Alchemist MCD could abuse this pretty badly.
I not only think a GM that doesn't allow it is well within their right, but more than likely preserving balance. A Ranger with Quickdraw, Flurry, and Alchemist MCD could abuse this pretty badly.
While I think this may indeed be too good to be true, you're talking about a ranger blowing through their limited supply of below level bombsand using at least two actions on their turn to inflict some bleed damage and dazzled. The dazzled half of that could basically be accomplished with a single mistform elixir, and the bleed feels pretty minor.
I don't know that this would outdamage the ranger just using all their actions to attack, or something like the precision best combo.
I've never met a situation where I could use this ability on multiple enemies (without affecting my allies as if we go for the strictest RAW they can also be affected). The situation where you have the enemies well packed in a 5ft. emanation with an enemy in the middle, no allies in the area and the enemies close enough so sending your AC alone would not be a death sentence is pretty rare.
Anyway, I only apply it to the target of the Strike as applying it in an area seems obviously not intended. I consider that when they speak of a Strike, they imply a Strike against the creature, not against another one.
Also, even if it's a nice combo, building a Flurry Ranger for the sole purpose of dealing 2d4 bleed in a 5ft. emanation isn't optimized. At level 8, you have Enervation if you really want a lot of Persistent damage, Fireball if you aim for direct damage, or Calm Emotions if you like debuffing.
This combo is excellent against bosses. 20% miss chance won't trivialize a boss fight, but it'll definitely be a welcomed debuff. It's a nice combo but nothing close to an "I win" move.
I don't know that this would outdamage the ranger just using all their actions to attack, or something like the precision best combo.
It's not like the Ranger really had to make much of an investment to pull this off though, and it's a pretty amazing turn opener regardless.
Like automatically applying Dazzled and Bleed to more than one opponent is better than most spells at the point you gain this (level 2).
If you take Quick Draw off the table (not really required to abuse this), it either costs you an Elf Ancestry or a 2nd level class feat that's already pretty value.
I personally thought Ranger MCD Alchemist was already pretty good, this just feels pretty cheesy.
Also, even if it's a nice combo, building a Flurry Ranger for the sole purpose of dealing 2d4 bleed in a 5ft. emanation isn't optimized. At level 8, you have Enervation if you really want a lot of Persistent damage, Fireball if you aim for direct damage, or Calm Emotions if you like debuffing.
I mean a Ranger doesn't have either of those things, and in the scenario we are describing here a Ranger can make this their second or even third attack if they have Flurry and almost certainly trigger Splash on more than one target.
And I still think the DPS increase on a Bomber Alchemist with an AC considering even just 2 targets approaches the threshold of out damaging a martial.
______________________________________
It's obviously not intended and it's pretty easy to see how it can be abused. Sure, 9 people all adjacent to each other isn't exactly likely, but that just creates more headaches for the GM to maintain that paradigm and to prevent PCs from forcing said scenarios to happen.
I mean I'll say kudos for finding it, it's neat for sure, but it's cheesy and not something I'd allow (I'd allow it on the actual target of the Strike though, just not anyone who took Splash).
In a format where the biggest challenge is having no idea what your party composition will be, the alchemist will at least be able to fill any holes. But then again, the druid will do that better too.The holes that are difficult to fill are skill-based. INT-based characters, plus rogues, have an edge because of the sheer number of skills they can cover.
When 4 of 6 need to pass a Survival check or the whole party gets lost, the "tipping point" PCs (the ones that make or break the group success) are the alchemists and wizards who need nat 9-11s to hit (and took Survival as their 7th or 8th skill), not the rangers and druids who hit with nat 6-8s (and took Survival as their 1st or 2nd skill).
So what does the alchemist do here that a wizard with alchemist dedication doesn't while also having the whole arcane list to work with? Or a witch. Or even an investigator?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean I'll say kudos for finding it, it's neat for sure, but it's cheesy and not something I'd allow (I'd allow it on the actual target of the Strike though, just not anyone who took Splash).
I disagree about the Ranger but it's not very important as we both agree on this ruling. Applying it on multiple targets seems not intended and too strong. Apllying it on one target is already very handy.
So what does the alchemist do here that a wizard with alchemist dedication doesn't while also having the whole arcane list to work with? Or a witch. Or even an investigator?
I already got a similar discussion. My opinion is that Mutagens, by allowing you to always have the maximum item bonus for your level whatever the skill used (and even one point above it) puts the Alchemist just behind Rogue and Investigator when it comes to skills. It's not an opinion everyone has, and I prefer to avoid having this discussion again as it proved itself useless. I just stick to my opinion.
Something SuperBidi was talking about in an earlier Alchemist discussion kinda stuck with me and got me wondering: Would my Bomber be better off grabbing Electric Arc in some way and use that instead of Perpetual Infusion Bombs?
So I started working out the math of it all. My Bomber is a good candidate for Wizard Dedication. He's maxed out on Int, and will be for his career. I thought I'd bring up my results here, as SuperBidi once again brought up that talking point.
I set up the experiment. For the purposes of this, I was *not* looking at going full-bore Wizard Dedication. I was looking at whether spending a Feat, sometime around 2nd Level, was worth it to be able to zap folks as opposed to Bomb them. You could definitely improve the results from Electric Arc by spending the Feats to improve your Spell DC (among many other benefits) but again, not really looking at that... just looking at whether or not you'd be better off spending that 2nd Level Class Feat.
Now, as to the opposition. I did some research, found a great spreadsheet called All Easytool Monsters. Decided to look at the Mode Value for at-level Monster Reflex Saves and AC. (Mode being the most common data point in the given set.) Quickly decided that I'd just go with the straight-up Moderate Save Value from the Monster Construction rules because the Mode Reflex Save jumps up and down really weirdly some levels. The Mode AC, btw, matches perfectly with the "High" AC value from the construction rules.
So, with help from Cyouni's DM that taught me how to look at average damage output, I set to work. Problem is though... perpetual damage gets tricky. On average, perpetual damage will last three rounds. (1 Round Guaranteed, then 70% failure chance. 70% * 70% = 49%, close enough for average.) Of course, while a Bomb is lasting 3 rounds, you can spam Electric Arc for 3 rounds straight.
I decided to look at the damage output over three rounds. Ideal circumstances for Electric Arc: 2 Targets within 30'. As for the Bombs, I came up with a routine (all Bombs are Perpetual Infusions appropriate for the level):
Round 1: Throw Acid Flask at Target 1. Full 3-Round Perpetual Damage.
Round 2: Throw Acid Flask at Target 2. 2-Round Perpetual Damage.
Round 3: Throw Alchemist's Fire at either Target. 1 Round Perpetual Damage.
I based the Bomber on my own, who has Far Lobber, and hence can hit the same two targets at the same Range. Like my Bomber, all my numbers are based on using Quicksilver Mutagen consistently and maxing Dex. Calculated Splash. Sticky Bombs and Expanded Splash are assumed as well at their appropriate Levels.
So, what were the results?
Levels 2-6, EA wins simply because there are no Perpetual Infusion Bombs. :-D To be fair to the Cantrip, a lot of the time it would win over regular Bombs.
Level 7, the Bombs get absolutely clobbered. On average, EA does 23.2 more damage over the 3 rounds, or ~ 8HP per round if you prefer.
Level 8, and Sticky Bomb becomes available. The deficit, from Levels 8-10, shrinks a fair bit. EA still wins, but by 8.9, 13.3 & 13.8 damage over the three rounds. Or, if you prefer, ~3/round (L8), and ~4-5/round (L9-10).
Levels 11 & 12 are interesting. The Bombs win, by an average 10.95 damage at L11 & a much narrower 1.95 @ L12. Going from Lesser to Moderate obviously makes a difference.
Levels 13-16 EA is back on top, although the margin is even narrower than at L8. 2.7, .75, 4.95 & 2.25. So, ~1 HP a round, or less (a little more at L15).
At the end of his career, the Bombs win. 28.55, 16.06, 16.8, 4.71. So ~9-10 HP/round (L17), ~4 HP/round (L18-19), ~1 HP/round (L20).
So, getting Electric Arc is a fairly solid option. However, Perpetual Bombs keep up pretty well. This white-room experiment ignores a couple of things.
1) Splash AoE damage. Even at Level 7, the level where EA has the biggest advantage, if you could splash 1 extra target per Round you'd cut the deficit in half. (A max Int L7 Bomber with Calculated Splash does 4 Splash Damage per Bomb, regardless of the Bomb's tier.) Splash 2 extra folks, and the deficit is gone.
All the other levels, all it takes is one extra Splash target per Round, as Splash just keeps going up and the deficits get smaller. With that one extra target per round, the Bombs win most times. (L9 you might be 1HP/round behind. Depends.)
2) At 9th level and up, a Bomber has an option with Bombs that you just don't have with Electric Arc: Using your 3rd Action to do more damage, courtesy of the Double Brew class feature. (Action 1: QA two Perpetual Bombs. Actions 2 & 3, Strike with the Bombs.)
I worked up a different routine for Levels 9+.
Round 1: Sticky Acid Flask and Regular Alchemist's Fire on Target 1.
Round 2: Sticky Acid Flask and Regular Alchemist's Fire on Target 2.
Round 3: Sticky Alchemist's Fire and Regular Acid Flask on either Target.
(Interesting thing here: Third Round the Acid Flask is doing only base damage, no Perpetual at all, as the target is already taking more potent Perpetual Acid Damage. An Acid Flask's regular damage maxes out at 13 for a Major Acid Flask, or 12 for a Greater Acid Flask, the highest a Perpetual Bomb can be.)
The difference is substantial. At its peak (Level 17), the Bomber is doing 69.45 more damage with the Bombs then they would with Electric Arc. (This is over three rounds. So, ~23 hp/round more.) At all levels, 9-20, the Bomber does more with Bombs should they choose to use their 3rd Action like this.
Combine additional Splash AoE Targets with the 3-Action option and Bombs start looking really good. I haven't actually done the math there. Might be fun to do so one day.
Now, my own Bomber, his damage totals won't be as good. I didn't choose Alchemist's Fire for a Perpetual. I went with Bottled Lightning... gotta love that flat-footed. I *did* choose Acid Flask though. One of these days I should work out how much damage that combo can do...
So, my choice is: I'm sticking with Bombs. They're more fun (for me), and just as good if not better.
Those mutagen buffs are also great for doing what Watery Soup described: helping a random team get gud at a thing. Especially past level 11 when Cognitive Mutagen can get someone trained in an intelligence skill.
Greater Cognitive Mutagen + Quick Alchemy is a nice combo. Instantly (well, in 2 Actions) gain any Int-based Skill you need for 1 Hour. All of a sudden, you're trained in <INSERT WHATEVER SUBJECT YOU NEED HERE> Lore. Heh.
Something SuperBidi was talking about in an earlier Alchemist discussion kinda stuck with me and got me wondering: Would my Bomber be better off grabbing Electric Arc in some way and use that instead of Perpetual Infusion Bombs?
I haven't checked your numbers precisely but they seem in line with what I'm getting from Citricking's tool. I just made my comparison by increasing proficiency at level 12 and 18 for the MCed Electric Arc and Perpetual Bombs were looking worse all along the way.
A few things to note:
- Electric Arc is available at level 2. As we are speaking of an at will attack option, I think it is major as you will need it way more at low levels.
- Your comparison between Double Brew + Perpetual Sticky + Perpetual and Electric Arc is a comparison between a 3-action activity and a 2-action one. If you now compare it to Electric Arc + Bomb, Electric Arc will once again beat Perpetual Bombs. And paying a third of a reagent per round at level 9+ is not an issue.
- And the most important thing is that being comparable to a Trained Proficiency Electric Arc proves that Perpetual Bombs are not competitive against any real combat routine. That's why I say that taking Sticky Bombs is a waste of a feat. Perpetual Bombs are just there for the extreme cases where you have no bomb left and nothing else to do. Using it regularly is a very bad thing and instead of paying a level 8 feat to make them hardly better you should spend this feat to grab something that will allow you to be competitive.
Perpetual Bombs are beyond salvation. Even if you take all the available feats to improve them they will not be worth using on a regular basis.
Perpetual Bombs are beyond salvation. Even if you take all the available feats to improve them they will not be worth using on a regular basis.
I don't think Perpetual Infusions is really meant to be a go-to strategy. It's a way to add damage/buffs/whatever when things aren't serious enough that you'd want to spend resources on them.
Perpetual Bombs deal less damage, so use them for clean-up when you know the fight is won already. It's more flavourful than a crossbow.
Perpetual poisons are similar to perpetual bombs, but slightly less usable. Maybe you ARE using a crossbow ... but poisoned.
Perpetual Mutagens might be nice for a semi-permanent buff to a certain set of skills, it's like an aid-another check that you can feed to your party-members.
Perpetual heals are ... ok they're terrible. They should have allowed perpetual Elixirs of Life . Is it unlimited healing? Yes, but you can do that with skills in PF2. Is it unlimited in-combat healing? Yes but it's not GOOD in-combat healing - it' not worth the actions in most combats. If you're worried about shenanigans just say that perpetual infusions don't work with the Greater Field Discovery . Without this you're saving yourself 2 reagents per day ... and getting a less good
If the fight is serious then you want higher damage from bombs and poisons, higher bonuses from mutagens and ... nope that's all.
Perpetual Mutagens have a slight advantage if you take Revivifying Mutagen, but you only get 1d6HP/round until level 17 from your Perpetual Mutagens this way. Again, is it unlimited healing? Yes. Is it worth worrying about? No.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just finished a 7th and 8th level game with a bomber alchemist who made heavy use of perpetual bottled lightnings to just make everything flat-footed. He wasn't trying to be the damage dealer, he was trying to enable the damage dealers, and he did a damned good job of it. That's a niche that electric arc can't fill.
I've been playing two Alchemists in PFS. My first is a Bomber that has reached 8th Level; my second is a Mutagenist that is now at 3rd Level. Both have been really, really fun to play. I'll focus mainly on the Bomber, as I've played him more.
.
This may be the most positive, and beneficial, and wholeheartedly endorsed post about alchemists in 2e that I've ever read.
|
I’ve been playing a Toxicologist for months now and just hit level 9. Overall I love the class but it does take a level of complexity to master that isn’t found for other classes. I basically spend every combat as a switch-hitter, adjusting my role depending on the challenge and I keep every weapon in the party poisoned. I haven’t felt the pain from the lower hit bonus just yet but that’s mostly because I try to stay in Quicksilver Mutagen.
I will say though where I’m starting to hurt the most is in the lack of items. There are so many weird level gaps in available items. I’m also missing some feats like Poison Conversation and Malignant Poison to really take advantage of the contact and inhaled poison in combat. We’re playing through Agents of Edgewatch and I’ve yet to have an occasion to use either type of poison.
|
|
I’ve been playing a Toxicologist for months now and just hit level 9. Overall I love the class but it does take a level of complexity to master that isn’t found for other classes. I basically spend every combat as a switch-hitter, adjusting my role depending on the challenge and I keep every weapon in the party poisoned. I haven’t felt the pain from the lower hit bonus just yet but that’s mostly because I try to stay in Quicksilver Mutagen.
I will say though where I’m starting to hurt the most is in the lack of items. There are so many weird level gaps in available items. I’m also missing some feats like Poison Conversation and Malignant Poison to really take advantage of the contact and inhaled poison in combat. We’re playing through Agents of Edgewatch and I’ve yet to have an occasion to use either type of poison.
Mind to share how much of your poisons manage to work on a fight?
Overall, of course.
You’d be surprised but more often than not I manage to poison multiple enemies in combat. We were actually just in a combat session before last where we were swarmed by 7 human enemies and I poisoned 3 of them. Of course with some enemies with high fort saves I’m reverse critfishing but for the most part I haven’t felt shut out. We’ll see how that changes in higher levels when we run into the inevitable demon enemies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You’d be surprised but more often than not I manage to poison multiple enemies in combat. We were actually just in a combat session before last where we were swarmed by 7 human enemies and I poisoned 3 of them. Of course with some enemies with high fort saves I’m reverse critfishing but for the most part I haven’t felt shut out. We’ll see how that changes in higher levels when we run into the inevitable demon enemies.I’ve been playing a Toxicologist for months now and just hit level 9. Overall I love the class but it does take a level of complexity to master that isn’t found for other classes. I basically spend every combat as a switch-hitter, adjusting my role depending on the challenge and I keep every weapon in the party poisoned. I haven’t felt the pain from the lower hit bonus just yet but that’s mostly because I try to stay in Quicksilver Mutagen.
I will say though where I’m starting to hurt the most is in the lack of items. There are so many weird level gaps in available items. I’m also missing some feats like Poison Conversation and Malignant Poison to really take advantage of the contact and inhaled poison in combat. We’re playing through Agents of Edgewatch and I’ve yet to have an occasion to use either type of poison.
Mind to share how much of your poisons manage to work on a fight?
Overall, of course.Good!
What about the rest of the party ( you said that you keep all party weapons poisoned )?
We have a fighter with a hammer and shield with spikes and a monk who utilizes tiger stance. Normally I’ll poison their weapons with my perpetual Giant Centipede poison during daily preparations to take advantage of the Pinpoint Poisoner feat. The frequency of their effectiveness varies but when it works it’s great. Especially for those sweet moments where the monk flurries and the monster fails both, pushing the poison to stage 2. I typically use them to help me figure out which monsters are immune so I don’t waste my infused poisons and to help set up one of my bigger poisons.
I typically use them to help me figure out which monsters are immune so I don’t waste my infused poisons and to help set up one of my bigger poisons.That's the alchemist mindset...
That's genius!
EDIT:
Well if you are going to play the RAW game, familiars can't activate magic items.It's a matter of "when" rather than possibility.
I won't probably allow a character to interpose between a dragon and a sword and board fighter fighting, making the fighter drink the potion from his hand.
The text just mention willing ( or helpless ) creature, but that's it.
Leaving apart the "activation part" which I am not quite sure a familiar ( as well as an animal companion ) could do on its own.
When is "in combat", because you only specify actions during combat. So, you are clearly not following RAW by forbidding it.
Feeding Elixirs is a core mechanic of the Alchemist. Forbidding it is just making their life harder (and you don't need to).
No, rules aren't that strict. It's up to the GM.
Also, potions and elixirs are not activated when fed but when drank.So it's completely RAW to allow it as much as it is RAW to forbid it. That's why I encourage to take Master Form to cut the discussion, as it's hard to argue that some humans can feed potions and others can't.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One last thing to note about the Alchemist is that the power of his alchemical items vary greatly by level. While martials abilities are extremely stable and while spellcasters gain new abilities but rarely lose any, the Alchemist items are varying so much that there are some levels where every Alchemist is a Bomber and others where you can completely disregard your Research Field.
Roughly, alchemical items progression is this one:
- Bombs: Bombs are weak at level 1-2 and then gets completely crazy at level 3. At level 3, any Alchemist with at least 14 Dex is a Bomber. After that, Bombs efficiency slowly decreases up to level 20. At levels 4-7, Bombs are quite competitive. At levels 8-12, you can still use them a bit if you have all the damage increasing feats. At level 13+ they are equivalent to a martial secondary attack, you only throw more than one bomb per round when you meet a weakness.
- Elixirs of Life: At level 1-4, they can be ignored. They become strong at level 5, slowly decrease to become weak at level 8, at level 9 they are strong again and slowly decrease to become okish at level 12, at level 13+ they roughly stay good with low level variations.
- Skill item bonus Mutagens: At level 1-2 they are roughly useless, at level 3-10 they are weak, they become nice at level 11 when you have both the duration and the +3 bonus. At level 17 they get the +4 bonus that adds a bit more icing on the cake.
- Drakescale Mutagen: This one is a nice Mutagen at low levels, and considering how the Alchemist is bad at low level it's nice to have it. At level 1-2 it's nice, and quite strong at level 3-5. After that, it tends to be less interesting mostly because your other items become competitive.
- Poisons: Poisons are quite weak at level 1-4 and 6. The level 5 one is nice. At level 7 they finally get interesting. At level 8, they are supreme, everyone is a Toxicologist at level 8. They are a bit weaker at level 9 (unless you're a Toxicologist). After level 10, if you are not a Toxicologist and don't have the Potent Poisoner feat, they are only interesting at level 10, 13, and 17, while at level 16 they are as good as at level 8. If you are a Poisoner, they are quite nice all the way, with level 16 being still very interesting. If you only have the Potent Poisoner feat, they drop at level 20 unless you get access to the level 19 Oblivion Essence.
- Utility items and Elixirs: Most of the Alchemist utility is built between level 3 and 8. Once at level 10, there are not so many interesting Elixirs and Tools left to discover.