Opinions on current state of alchemist?

[Ganigumo]

I've been playing through ruins of gauntlight with a half-elf alchemist, we're at level 2 so far and it's been painful.

Built my character with:
8 Str
16 Dex
14 Con
10 Wis
10 Cha

Bomber alchemist, took quick bomber at 1, and alchemical familiar at 2, Elven weapon familiarity so I could use a shortbow, and since we're doing the extra archetype variant I took rogue dedication at 2 so I could get some extra skill feats/training.
Been running the familiar with extra reagents and speech.

So far at low levels the class just feels incredibly underwhelming, I don't have enough reagents, (even with 18 int and extra reagents) to hand out buffs to my allies when I also need to make healing elixirs and bombs. Quicksilver elixir is pretty dangerous for the swashbuckler anyways, and quick alchemy is basically pointless at this level because of the limited reagents.

I've been making a couple quicksilver elixirs for my own use, to help with my accuracy issues, but its not enough to get through all the encounters in a day and even then it eats up 1-2 actions at the start of every fight just to use it.

Accuracy is still an issue, even with the elixir, most level 2 enemies seem to have 17-19 AC, I've got an attack bonus of 7, or 8 with the elixir and can't benefit from flanking on my ranged attacks which gives me 40-50% accuracy without the elixir, or 45-55% with it against same level enemies which gets worse against higher level ones.

Damage-wise bombs are unimpressive, doing only slightly more than the shortbow (composite shortbow with a decent str mod would be close) and either applying a debuff or having some extra persistent damage, but being limited in uses per day. Generally I only use the shortbow to attack when I have the MAP or are out of bombs. Splash damage has yet to be useful outside of the bonus 1 damage the target takes (it turns out enemies being adjacent to each other, while not being adjacent to a party member is pretty rare). I know eventually, with feats, the math might even out if you factor in persistent damage, but given how short most fights tend to be, combined with alchemist's accuracy issues that makes missing a bomb in an early turn is absolutely crippling.

Honestly I really like the idea of debuff bombs, but due to accuracy and not applying the debuff on a miss they're a bit inconsistent, especially when compared to debuff spells.

Feat selection is also much less interesting than other classes I think, I took quick bomber because otherwise my action economy would be ruined, and alchemical familiar since I'm desperate for reagents. At level 4 I basically need to take calculated splash as a number fixer and prerequisite for another number fixer.

I understand that alchemist turns on at higher levels, and seems to scale a bit quadratically, but its the only class that does this buy it makes playing an alchemist at low levels pretty painful.

At this point I kind of think the class needs some serious reworking, I love the additive feats, but locking it to quick alchemy, while quick alchemy is so difficult to use at low levels, makes them bad choices early on, especially combined with the fact that feats like quick bomber are almost mandatory.

If I were to make some changes I would:

-Add "quick grab" as a class feature which lets alchemists draw an alchemical item in the same action it takes to use it. (helps with action economy of all alchemists, bombers get quick bomb for free, healers can use an elixir on an ally in 2 actions since they only need to move and use it, and mutagenists don't need to walk around with a potion in their hands at all times)
-Enduring alchemy is a class feature built into quick alchemy
-Ditch signature items, alchemists get perpetual infusion at level 1, for a single alchemical item related to their research field.
-Lesser perpetuals lowered to level 3
-All bombs available as bomber perpetual options
-debuff bombs still applying debuffs to targets hit by the splash damage
-Sticky bomb removes all direct damage from the bomb and converts it into persistent damage (i.e lesser alchemists fire would do 1 splash and 1d8+2 persistent) the class needs less math fixer feats
-Calculated splash, do something, the class needs less math fixer feats, maybe just add half int mod in splash damage to all bombs made by the alchemist as a class feature or something
-Demolition Charge: full bomb damage to all targets adjacent to the explosion, it takes a minute to set up and you can't use perpetuals for it, lets make it cool
-Rewrite Chirurgeon, I'm not sure what exactly it should do, but it's not very interesting outside of the greater field discovery, maybe change that to be d8s on your elixirs instead of healing the maximum amount and shift some power down to lower levels (maybe a perpetual level 0 elixir that heals 2hp or something)
-level 3 elixir of life for 2d6+3
-more mutagen types for mutagenists, as well as making mutagenic flashback a level 1 feat, and replacing it with a feature letting you ignore drawbacks of your own mutagens.
-mutagenist can pick strength or dex as a primary attribute
-Maybe lower number of infusions since perpetuals come online at level 1 now? 1/2 level + int? maybe a feat for full level + int? although loss of signature items at levels 1-4 might be enough of a swing

What's everyone else's opinion on the class? is it fine? does it need to be adjusted? Does it just need new alchemical item options? I honestly think the class is pretty close to being great but they need to flatten out the power curve a bit. I'd be fine with bomber's lower accuracy and damage if they could apply debuffs more consistently, and it would be nice if chirurgeon was appealing at lower levels.

[HumbleGamer]

Ganigumo wrote:

So far at low levels the class just feels incredibly underwhelming, I don't have enough reagents, (even with 18 int and extra reagents) to hand out buffs to my allies when I also need to make healing elixirs and bombs. Quicksilver elixir is pretty dangerous for the swashbuckler anyways, and quick alchemy is basically pointless at this level because of the limited reagents.

Well, it's like being a caster and complains that he hasn't enough slots to blast and buff allies during every single encounter.

Choices have to be made, whether they lean towards supporting, healing or damaging stuff.

The more you level up, the more the possibilities ( starting from lvl 11 mutagens are going to last 1 hours rather than 1 or 10 minutes ).

Alchemist issues imo are mostly the expectations, because it's a "unique" class and there's hardly comparison with another.

For example, an alchemist with life elixir would be able to feed it to an ally, or the ally may be able to drink it by himself.

Bombs deal normal damage ( 2d6/2d8 starting from lvl 3 + extra effects ) and you can brew different elemental( i mean the 4 elements + sonic ) stuff, along with negative, positive, poison, mental, etc...

Can be either used by you or a martial combatant.

I agree that if you compare it to a martial character or even a blaster spellcaster there's no comparison, but point is that the alchemist is neither a blaster nor a combatant, so it's unfair trying to match him with another class.

It could use some adjustments, I totally agree on this.

[SuperBidi]

Alchemist is a resource-limited class, and among the most limited of all. During long adventuring days, you easily end up with no items, which isn't fun at all. And Abomination Vaults being a dungeon, you only have long adventuring days.
I encourage you to talk with your GM of a way to gain extra reagents. Scavenging it from enemy corpses, for example. Otherwise, you will suffer, in my opinion.

[Lightning Raven]

Quote:

I understand that alchemist turns on at higher levels, and seems to scale a bit quadratically, but its the only class that does this buy it makes playing an alchemist at low levels pretty painful.

Oh, boy, if only it were true. The alchemist trades its lacks of resources of earlier levels for lack of proficiency and interesting feats at later level (this is after level 13).

Currently, from what I've seen on discussions, is that the Alchemist's "sweet spot" is around level 7-ish through level 12, which is when they have a decent number of reagents, some feats under their belt and proficiency is quite alright.

Funnily enough, it was during this "sweet spot" period that we had our only case of early retirement for a character at the table.

[DeathlessOne]

I play an Alchemist (Mutagenist) in Extinction Curse and we've made it to level 8 (almost 9). The first few levels were .. interesting? Took me till level 3 to really find my 'place' and figure out what I wanted to do, which was a bit of everything.

I picked a race (gnome) so that I could get a cantrip that scaled with my level and gave me a way of dealing damage without relying on an attack roll (Electric Arc).
I set my ability scores as INT>DEX=CHA and decided to take the Sorcerer Dedication, and then the Dragon Disciple Dedication.
Being a Mutagentist, I could brew mutagens for any of my party members and still benefit from them myself. The characters that have animal companions LOVE my Drakeheart mutagens. The monk LOVES my Bestial Mutagens because they effect unarmed attacks.
Just got access to Wyvern's poison, so the first combat after I apply poison to weapons is ... VERY interesting.
I am the main healer. Medicine + Assurance + Skinstitch Salve make my job easy. Battle Medicine too. I am SORELY tempted to look into the Medic Dedication feats later.

I've found my strength in this class is in all the support I can offer. I don't do the most damage. I don't want to, though I can easily fill that role if I need to briefly. I just tell my familiar to mix up a potion and get the monk back on his feat while I go crack some skulls. It is incredibly tempting to take more dedication feats in order to make my familiar better at that role, but I need to take SOME alchemist feats (lol). I've only got the one so far (Alchemical Familiar)

[Ganigumo]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

So far at low levels the class just feels incredibly underwhelming, I don't have enough reagents, (even with 18 int and extra reagents) to hand out buffs to my allies when I also need to make healing elixirs and bombs. Quicksilver elixir is pretty dangerous for the swashbuckler anyways, and quick alchemy is basically pointless at this level because of the limited reagents.

Well, it's like being a caster and complains that he hasn't enough slots to blast and buff allies during every single encounter.

Choices have to be made, whether they lean towards supporting, healing or damaging stuff.

The more you level up, the more the possibilities ( starting from lvl 11 mutagens are going to last 1 hours rather than 1 or 10 minutes ).

Alchemist issues imo are mostly the expectations, because it's a "unique" class and there's hardly comparison with another.

For example, an alchemist with life elixir would be able to feed it to an ally, or the ally may be able to drink it by himself.

Bombs deal normal damage ( 2d6/2d8 starting from lvl 3 + extra effects ) and you can brew different elemental( i mean the 4 elements + sonic ) stuff, along with negative, positive, poison, mental, etc...

Can be either used by you or a martial combatant.

I agree that if you compare it to a martial character or even a blaster spellcaster there's no comparison, but point is that the alchemist is neither a blaster nor a combatant, so it's unfair trying to match him with another class.

It could use some adjustments, I totally agree on this.

I don't have an issue with alchemist being different from martials or casters, but it relies on essentially the same mechanics as those other characters to do what it needs to, making it inconsistent.

It's buffs are all single target and take 2 actions, while only giving an ~+1 item bonus (the same as aoe abilities like bless or inspire courage)

Elixirs of life only scale on d6s and take 2-3 actions to work, 2 actions to draw and use it, 1 action to move to your ally. By pure economy its better for allies to drink it themselves, but you're the support that's weaker in combat

pre-prepared bombs have similar damage to bows, with extra effects, but have bad action economy without quick draw/quick bomber so handing them to allies is weak. Alchemist accuracy make applying those extra effects a challenge as well.

Lack of early perpetuals really hurts their longevity in adventures, even worse than casters who at least have cantrips.

They're just lacking tools to make them more consistent and efficient, like an additive for aoe mutagens, earlier perpetuals, and gaps in elixirs of life levels.

[dmerceless]

Even after the changes, all three groups I play in have pretty much given up on the class and relegated it to a meme. Even in the more casual group, the people who played it just found it super underwhelming. I think the Alchemist suffers from a lot of issues, but they can be more or less summed up by "trying to do too many things at once". The Alchemist does a lot of things, and it does many of these outside of combat. In return, the individual impact of each thing they do has to be painfully small, and their actual role in combat is dubious, especially if you're not a bomber.

[HumbleGamer]

Ganigumo wrote:

It's buffs are all single target and take 2 actions, while only giving an ~+1 item bonus (the same as aoe abilities like bless or inspire courage)

Not at all.

You create elixirs during daily preps and give em to allies.

They will manage to use them on the first round of combat.
For example, Drink it ( given a free weapon ) or drink it and draw a weapon ( sword and board character ) or drink it and put the grip back to the weapon ( dual weapon user ).

Ganigumo wrote:

pre-prepared bombs have similar damage to bows, with extra effects, but have bad action economy without quick draw/quick bomber so handing them to allies is weak. Alchemist accuracy make applying those extra effects a challenge as well.

It's true that not all combatant are going to have quick draw ( the only ones are rogue and ranger IIRC, or you might bet it from an archetype ), but knowing what you'll be fighting, and given the fact they are ranged weapon and most important the "MAP", the possibility to use them to trigger weaknesses in addition to the damage is something I wouldn't exclude.

Intelligence works permitted ( scouting and knowing what you are going to fight ) might result in using specific bombs ( assuming you didn't go with 30 fire bombs but 3x each, for example.

But I do share some of your thoughts too ( consider this as a possibility, and not something mandatory ).

Ganigumo wrote:

Lack of early perpetuals really hurts their longevity in adventures, even worse than casters who at least have cantrips.

True, that it's why it's wiser ( in my opinion ) to go with a witch/wizard dedication until lvl 7, when spellcasters will get 2 points ahead of you, and you are going to hit the first perpetual-

Though, to be honest, I'd always prefer a striking weapon rather than perpetuals, unless poisons, if you consider them to to last on a weapon until your next daily preparations rather then expire at the end of the round, but this would require a toxicologist to match their DC with your class DC.

[roquepo]

Alchemist would be on the average if they got the "cantrip" bombs/mutagens/whatever way earlier. Besides that it is a more than alright class.

[Ganigumo]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

It's buffs are all single target and take 2 actions, while only giving an ~+1 item bonus (the same as aoe abilities like bless or inspire courage)

Not at all.

You create elixirs during daily preps and give em to allies.

They will manage to use them on the first round of combat.
For example, Drink it ( given a free weapon ) or drink it and draw a weapon ( sword and board character ) or drink it and put the grip back to the weapon ( dual weapon user ).

1 action to draw, 1 action to drink. if the entire party drinks one at the start of combat that's 4-8 actions depending on how many members have a free hand in their setup. Drink & draw (2 actions), Drink and add a hand to a 2-hander (2 actions, removing a hand is free, but putting it back is an action), drink w/free hand (1 action)

HumbleGamer wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

pre-prepared bombs have similar damage to bows, with extra effects, but have bad action economy without quick draw/quick bomber so handing them to allies is weak. Alchemist accuracy make applying those extra effects a challenge as well.

It's true that not all combatant are going to have quick draw ( the only ones are rogue and ranger IIRC, or you might bet it from an archetype ), but knowing what you'll be fighting, and given the fact they are ranged weapon and most important the "MAP", the possibility to use them to trigger weaknesses in addition to the damage is something I wouldn't exclude.

Intelligence works permitted ( scouting and knowing what you are going to fight ) might result in using specific bombs ( assuming you didn't go with 30 fire bombs but 3x each, for example.

But I do share some of your thoughts too ( consider this as a possibility, and not something mandatory ).

Hitting weaknesses is great but inconsistent, you have a lot of options to hit elemental weaknesses and help your party do it, but figuring out weaknesses isn't always easy now that not all recall knowledge checks use int.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Lack of early perpetuals really hurts their longevity in adventures, even worse than casters who at least have cantrips.

True, that it's why it's wiser ( in my opinion ) to go with a witch/wizard dedication until lvl 7, when spellcasters will get 2 points ahead of you, and you are going to hit the first perpetual-

Though, to be honest, I'd always prefer a striking weapon rather than perpetuals, unless poisons, if you consider them to to last on a weapon until your next daily preparations rather then expire at the end of the round, but this would require a...

Yeah its rare that you could convince a martial to use bombs over their weapon, maybe in special situations where you can hit weaknesses or something. Toxicologist perpetuals barely function if they expire at the end of the round, so I can't imagine they do.

[HumbleGamer]

Ganigumo wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Not at all.
You create elixirs during daily preps and give em to allies.

They will manage to use them on the first round of combat.
For example, Drink it ( given a free weapon ) or drink it and draw a weapon ( sword and board character ) or drink it and put the grip back to the weapon ( dual weapon user ).

1 action to draw, 1 action to drink. if the entire party drinks one at the start of combat that's 4-8 actions depending on how many members have a free hand in their setup. Drink & draw (2 actions), Drink and add a hand to a 2-hander (2 actions, removing a hand is free, but putting it back is an action), drink w/free hand (1 action)

Why, assuming the party has an alchemist, wouldn't they, assuming a dungeon or a dangerous environement, walk with a potion in hand rather than a weapon in hand?

Also, stop considering that you have to give them elixirs ( mutagens mostly ) one at a time rather than giving them supplies anytime but during combat. It's against any logic.

It's one action to drink and, eventually, to draw/grip the weapon.

If the party wants to drink the elixir at the beginning of the combat, there's no reason not to walk with an elixir in hand rather than a weapon.

[Ganigumo]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Not at all.
You create elixirs during daily preps and give em to allies.

They will manage to use them on the first round of combat.
For example, Drink it ( given a free weapon ) or drink it and draw a weapon ( sword and board character ) or drink it and put the grip back to the weapon ( dual weapon user ).

1 action to draw, 1 action to drink. if the entire party drinks one at the start of combat that's 4-8 actions depending on how many members have a free hand in their setup. Drink & draw (2 actions), Drink and add a hand to a 2-hander (2 actions, removing a hand is free, but putting it back is an action), drink w/free hand (1 action)

Why, assuming the party has an alchemist, wouldn't they, assuming a dungeon or a dangerous environement, walk with a potion in hand rather than a weapon in hand?

Also, stop considering that you have to give them elixirs ( mutagens mostly ) one at a time rather than giving them supplies anytime but during combat. It's against any logic.

It's one action to drink and, eventually, to draw/grip the weapon.

If the party wants to drink the elixir at the beginning of the combat, there's no reason not to walk with an elixir in hand rather than a weapon.

Yes which is 1-2 actions per party member, across a party of 4, which is 4-8 actions.

If each member of the party is holding a mutagen at the start of combat it will take 1 action to drink the mutagen, and then another action if they need to draw their weapon.

If they aren't holding the mutagens (maybe because low level alchemists can't make enough for every fight unless they only make mutagens) it's 2-3 actions per party member. for a total of 8-12 actions.

This is all assuming the party members have the mutagens before the fight starts.

We're not in disagreement about the scenario here, but this is atrocious action economy for what you get out of it. Bless and inspire courage have way better economy, without drawbacks, especially since you don't take actions away from your other party members to use it.

[HumbleGamer]

Bless which is a 5 foot emanation?
which can be improved by expending an action to sustain and increase the radius by 5 feet?

Really?

Inspire courage is broken in terms of action requirements ( not to say available by lvl 1 and with "infinite" radius ) , but we all know the bard plays in another league.

By lvl 11 mutagens are going to last 1 hour at least, so there won't be white room scenarios nor excuses not to have them always active.

Assuming 8 fights per day ( impossible, but let's push it ) and a generous 30 minutes to patch up ( not all dm would grant the party to rest for that much in an enemy environement though ), a lvl 11 party would require 4 mutagens each ( for a total of 16, included the alchemist ) , out of 51 available elixirs/bombs.

At early levels it's simply harder ( and it's tough, I understand ), especially if the party wants to rest after any fight rather than use consumable items.

[Puna'chong]

Not good.

Though I've been playing with my own homebrew for some time, the class hasn't really had anything new since the APG, so it's still just as unfortunately janky as ever.

[Squiggit]

Same as ever. It's okay if you utilize your kit properly and spread out your resources. Most of the biggest frustrations I see from the Alchemist are people going into the class looking to specialize and failing because the Alchemist can't really support those builds very well (maybe specialist Bombers to a small extent).

The class has a really weird power curve where at low levels you just don't have enough reagents to lean into the class' flexibility but your utility doesn't scale the best either so there's this kinda small sweet spot that feels good but is bookended by a lot of mediocrity.

Puna'chong wrote:

the class hasn't really had anything new since the APG

This is one thing kind of rough about the Alchemist. Because it's not really a martial and not really a spellcaster, it doesn't explicitly benefit from new material supporting either. The class feels very self contained in a lot of ways which means it doesn't feel like it gains a lot from books that don't specifically have new things for the alchemist.

[Claxon]

My personal opinion of state alchemists is that they're pretty amazing. They have some great names like "Full Metal" and they do some crazy stuff that they swear isn't magic but sure looks like it.

[Watery Soup]

The drawbacks of mutagen are pretty bad, I question their general use in combat. It seems very niche - stuff you use when the stars align and the drawbacks don't hurt.

A lot of classes don't do well with long adventuring days. I feel as or more limited with wizards and witches at level 1 than alchemists. Level 1 sucks for a lot of spellcasters, and when spellcasters run out of spells it starts to suck for martials too. So, I don't see resource limitation as being a problem specific to alchemists.

I think spending feats to get weapon proficiency is bad. Alchemist proficiencies scale poorly, so while it's nice to pew pew with your shortbow at level 1, it goes down in value over time. So do spellcasting cantrips - you just end up Sunk Cost Fallacying your way to spellcasting mediocrity at higher levels. Get a dagger or some javelins.

Alchemist feats are so essential that people refer to them as "feat taxes" - ones that you must take. You're going to give up some (take your pick: either really good feats to make the class better or essential feats to make the class not suck). Be wary of people who simultaniously complain about feat taxes and then take ten billion archetype feats.

Overall, I think the bomber is fine and fun, but probably more so in a rotating character setting like Pathfinder Society than in a fixed stable group playing through an AP. It's also better in a setting facing a variety of challenges than a themed adventure, and in open spaces rather than a dungeon.

If you don't have fun playing it, just don't play it. I probably wouldn't in a dungeon crawl AP.

[Ganigumo]

Squiggit wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

the class hasn't really had anything new since the APG

This is one thing kind of rough about the Alchemist. Because it's not really a martial and not really a spellcaster, it doesn't explicitly benefit from new material supporting either. The class feels very self contained in a lot of ways which means it doesn't feel like it gains a lot from books that don't specifically have new things for the alchemist.

It also has math fixer feats that new class feats would need to compete with somehow. Which means they'd also need to be math fixer feats.

[Squiggit]

Yeah, the feat issue is a problem and even makes archetypes not super high impact for an alchemist... though how much you rely on those feats vary a bit by build. If you're only using bombs to trigger weaknesses or debuffs you can skip a few of them.

[Ganigumo]

Watery Soup wrote:

The drawbacks of mutagen are pretty bad, I question their general use in combat. It seems very niche - stuff you use when the stars align and the drawbacks don't hurt.

A lot of classes don't do well with long adventuring days. I feel as or more limited with wizards and witches at level 1 than alchemists. Level 1 sucks for a lot of spellcasters, and when spellcasters run out of spells it starts to suck for martials too. So, I don't see resource limitation as being a problem specific to alchemists.

I think spending feats to get weapon proficiency is bad. Alchemist proficiencies scale poorly, so while it's nice to pew pew with your shortbow at level 1, it goes down in value over time. So do spellcasting cantrips - you just end up Sunk Cost Fallacying your way to spellcasting mediocrity at higher levels. Get a dagger or some javelins.

Alchemist feats are so essential that people refer to them as "feat taxes" - ones that you must take. You're going to give up some (take your pick: either really good feats to make the class better or essential feats to make the class not suck). Be wary of people who simultaniously complain about feat taxes and then take ten billion archetype feats.

Overall, I think the bomber is fine and fun, but probably more so in a rotating character setting like Pathfinder Society than in a fixed stable group playing through an AP. It's also better in a setting facing a variety of challenges than a themed adventure, and in open spaces rather than a dungeon.

If you don't have fun playing it, just don't play it. I probably wouldn't in a dungeon crawl AP.

a wizard/druid with electric arc is still better than an alchemist with a shortbow. And casters tend to have focus spells that can pick up some of the slack (although the quality of those focus spells varies massively).

Also yeah, weapon proficiencies and cantrips on alchemists are just filler until you finally get perpetuals (as a bomber at least).

[aobst128]

The strength of the alchemist lies in it's versatility and support since your allies can use your items too. It's definitely difficult to manage early on though. Just remember to manage your signature items. Once you get your Field discovery at 5th level, your reagents will be much more efficient. Bombers can prepare every damage type except slicing and bludgeoning in their bombs. Use that to your advantage. Juggernaut mutagens are your friends.

[aobst128]

Ganigumo wrote:

Watery Soup wrote:

The drawbacks of mutagen are pretty bad, I question their general use in combat. It seems very niche - stuff you use when the stars align and the drawbacks don't hurt.

A lot of classes don't do well with long adventuring days. I feel as or more limited with wizards and witches at level 1 than alchemists. Level 1 sucks for a lot of spellcasters, and when spellcasters run out of spells it starts to suck for martials too. So, I don't see resource limitation as being a problem specific to alchemists.

I think spending feats to get weapon proficiency is bad. Alchemist proficiencies scale poorly, so while it's nice to pew pew with your shortbow at level 1, it goes down in value over time. So do spellcasting cantrips - you just end up Sunk Cost Fallacying your way to spellcasting mediocrity at higher levels. Get a dagger or some javelins.

Alchemist feats are so essential that people refer to them as "feat taxes" - ones that you must take. You're going to give up some (take your pick: either really good feats to make the class better or essential feats to make the class not suck). Be wary of people who simultaniously complain about feat taxes and then take ten billion archetype feats.

Overall, I think the bomber is fine and fun, but probably more so in a rotating character setting like Pathfinder Society than in a fixed stable group playing through an AP. It's also better in a setting facing a variety of challenges than a themed adventure, and in open spaces rather than a dungeon.

If you don't have fun playing it, just don't play it. I probably wouldn't in a dungeon crawl AP.

a wizard/druid with electric arc is still better than an alchemist with a shortbow. And casters tend to have focus spells that can pick up some of the slack (although the quality of those focus spells varies massively).

Also yeah, weapon proficiencies and cantrips on alchemists are just filler until you finally get perpetuals (as a bomber at least).

I'd argue that cantrips are a little better for damage since they scale faster, perpetual bombs are more useful as free debilitating bomb delivery.

[keftiu]

I’m displeased. It can’t do what I liked in 1e (all of the gross weird body horror) and what it can do (underwhelming crafting) does nothing for me.

Here’s hoping it, Witch, and maaaybe Champion either get some overhaul Class Archetypes or an Unchained equivalent.

[Lucas Yew]

If Alchemist ever gets an overhaul intra-edition, it must be done as a CRB full text replacement, not an Unchained version. So many GMs out there who only acknowledge the authority of "core only"...

Oh, and the fact it has less mechanical support as of now also works as a last chance to shake up its order of class features before it becomes too tangled to fix later on.

[Squiggit]

Lucas Yew wrote:

If Alchemist ever gets an overhaul intra-edition, it must be done as a CRB full text replacement, not an Unchained version. So many GMs out there who only acknowledge the authority of "core only"...

A core only purist would probably reject that anyways, so I'm not sure that's that important.

[Lucas Yew]

Squiggit wrote:

Lucas Yew wrote:

If Alchemist ever gets an overhaul intra-edition, it must be done as a CRB full text replacement, not an Unchained version. So many GMs out there who only acknowledge the authority of "core only"...

A core only purist would probably reject that anyways, so I'm not sure that's that important.

Thus rewriting the actual current Alchemist chapter of the CRB in a near future new printing. If the core RAW text is permanently replaced, what could they do but grumble on?

[Ganigumo]

keftiu wrote:

I’m displeased. It can’t do what I liked in 1e (all of the gross weird body horror) and what it can do (underwhelming crafting) does nothing for me.

Here’s hoping it, Witch, and maaaybe Champion either get some overhaul Class Archetypes or an Unchained equivalent.

Might be a bit off topic, but whats wrong with champion (other than lack of neutral options)? Their feats can be a bit unimpressive (at least at low levels) but the framework seems fine. The only thing I'd like to see on them is expert defense earlier (possibly keeping up with fighter weapon proficiencies).

[Djinn71]

Ganigumo wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I’m displeased. It can’t do what I liked in 1e (all of the gross weird body horror) and what it can do (underwhelming crafting) does nothing for me.

Here’s hoping it, Witch, and maaaybe Champion either get some overhaul Class Archetypes or an Unchained equivalent.

Might be a bit off topic, but whats wrong with champion (other than lack of neutral options)? Their feats can be a bit unimpressive (at least at low levels) but the framework seems fine. The only thing I'd like to see on them is expert defense earlier (possibly keeping up with fighter weapon proficiencies).

The only general complaint I've seen with them is that a Fighter with a Champion Dedication can make a better Champion than they can, as their main trick can be grabbed at 6th level by a multiclass character.

[Exocist]

Level 6 is just one of the most broken levels in the game in general. Fighter is strictly better than barb or champion because they can get the main feature at full strength while having the higher accuracy. At level 7, this rectifies when champ gets expert armour and barb gets the damage boost to rage.

Similarly, MC casters have the exact same DCs as fullcasters and both a 2nd and a 1st spell relative to the fullcasters level 3 spells. This isn’t as much of an issue though.

————————

Regarding alchemist: Yes, it just sucks until level 7-8. Especially in APs with an insane # of encounters a day, you run out of juice and unlike a caster you don’t have cantrips to fall back on, just a crossbow (which does very bad damage, almost a waste of actions really). I’d recommend getting witch dedication for electric arc, and retraining it later once you have perpetuals.

Mutagenist and Chirurgeon are just bad. Their 13ths are good, but their 1sts and their perpetuals are awful - these matter a lot more than a good 13th. Only play bomber or tox.

Alchemist can be a good support character from 7th-8th all the way to 20th. The problem is that what they do is extremely minor, even though they can do a lot of it and, eventually, actionlessly (effectively). +1 to hit isn’f flashy or that strong, neither is basic concealment, but if you have both all the time it is a pretty good power boost.

Similarly, splash damage and sticky bomb actually do add up to quite a lot (fighter-level or better) damage on average with the splash enhancer feats. It’s just that that damage is delivered in multiple small instances and a lot of the average power comes from miss damage. So it can feel like you’re doing nothing.

Alchemist is not a class you play if you want to be flashy. By the time it is strong, casters are way stronger at the support role. It’s a class you play if you want to develop 30 wrinkles in your brain every day to eke out a 2% edge over another class that did 1/100 the work.

[Karmagator]

While the class isn't unplayable or anything, it simply doesn't provide solutions to problems on the same level that pretty much all other classes do. In essence, the alchemist provides lots and lots of small parts of the solution, while other classes provide either the full solution immediately or at least a big part of said solution in one go. Add to that intense MADness, massive feat tax requirements to do basically anything and the fact that there is only one "good" class path... well, you can see why this class gets a bad rep.

And unlike the investigator - which I would also put in the "underpowered" pool of classes - it is impossible to build yourself out of that hole, not even with Free Archetype.

[SuperBidi]

I'm a great fan of the Alchemist, even if I'm realistic about its power level. I disagree with many things people think about the Alchemist, mostly around the usefulness of Perpetual Bombs and the comparison between Research Fields. In my opinion, this class has more to offer than just a few bombs.

But... But I would never play an Alchemist in an AP without any kind of GM houserules. Alchemist is fine in environments like PFS where you can't have more than a few fights per adventure. It can be very nice in some homebrew campaigns, especially if combat is not central. But APs are a lot about chaining tons of fights in a day and that's not an environment where you can take any pleasure in playing an Alchemist.

Alchemist is fine if you can easily use 2-3 alchemical items per combat round. Both in terms of power level and in terms of pleasure (as using Alchemical items is kind of the point of playing an Alchemist). If you can't do that, or only with weak and repetitive Perpetual items, I don't find it's worth playing one.

[Ganigumo]

SuperBidi wrote:

I'm a great fan of the Alchemist, even if I'm realistic about its power level. I disagree with many things people think about the Alchemist, mostly around the usefulness of Perpetual Bombs and the comparison between Research Fields. In my opinion, this class has more to offer than just a few bombs.

But... But I would never play an Alchemist in an AP without any kind of GM houserules. Alchemist is fine in environments like PFS where you can't have more than a few fights per adventure. It can be very nice in some homebrew campaigns, especially if combat is not central. But APs are a lot about chaining tons of fights in a day and that's not an environment where you can take any pleasure in playing an Alchemist.

Alchemist is fine if you can easily use 2-3 alchemical items per combat round. Both in terms of power level and in terms of pleasure (as using Alchemical items is kind of the point of playing an Alchemist). If you can't do that, or only with weak and repetitive Perpetual items, I don't find it's worth playing one.

When it comes to perpetuals its mostly a resource thing, when you have multiple encounters, and want to use quick alchemy to use additives (which make up some of the most interesting feats alchemist gets, which it should definitely get more of). It also gives you a a built in option as a bomber for when you have a MAP and don't want to waste an infused reagent or high level bomb and lets a toxicologist pre-buff (depending on how DM rules quick alchemy poisons I guess). Its not bad to have perpetual skill mutagens as a mutagenist to free up some infusions, and even though chirurgeons perpetuals are awful at least you'll never need to waste reagents on antiplagues or antivenoms?

The issue is by the time you get perpetuals you're finally starting to get past your resource issues anyways.

[SuperBidi]

Ganigumo wrote:

The issue is by the time you get perpetuals you're finally starting to get past your resource issues anyways.

In my opinion, Perpetual Bombs are just there to help you when you're out of resources, and as you point out they arrive too late to be really that useful.

Investing in Perpetual Bombs, as I see many people going for what I'd call "Perpetual builds", is in my opinion a bad idea. It defeats the point of the Alchemist (being a jack of all trades using its versatility to compensate its lack of power) and it doesn't work much as Perpetual Bombs are so weak that even when stacking tons of feats on them you don't end up with anything competitive.

The only Perpetual Items I find useful are Chirurgeon ones, as they give a small bonus to everyone. It gives you an idea of how I see the other Perpetual Items.

As a side note, I find the Debilitating feat chain to be too weak to be even considered. There shouldn't be a Fortitude save in the first place to make it on par with most spell debuffs (low level spell debuffs are both cheap and with a greater "accuracy" as they don't ask for a hit and a save to affect the enemy).

[Captain Morgan]

Inside every alchemist is a great class waiting to get out. By that I mean the class has a lot going for it, but also has a ton of stuff that holds it back. I think the biggest changes I'd like in the class are mostly quality of life changes. They do buff the class, but just for the ease of which they let you utilize resources.

1) Batch size should just be 4 per reagent, which is the default for crafting. Building an exception into advanced alchemy to make it two, and then build a further exception to make some 3, feels needlessly confusing and limiting. 4 also means you can kit out the average party with one reagent, which feels nice. I'm holding out hope for this change because it would actually remove text and therefore wouldn't increase the page count for errata.

2) Formulas should auto heighten. This isn't a huge thing, and mostly just saves gold, but... Purchasing separate versions of the same item is annoying and clutters up the book keeping.

3) Advanced Alchemy as a 10 minute activity would be amazing. Quick Alchemy is just too resource inefficient, but often times you'll only find out what you need mid exploration mode. Being able to whip up dark vision elixirs or social mutagens with 10 minutes warning would be great. You could even tie it to a Craft check if you wanted too-- the class has very little reason to actually use the skill right now.

The other problem is that new Alchemist feats are really hard to justify when the existing feats are so important to make the class function. New alchemical items can help, though.

It also bugs me that I have to read 3 different rules paragraphs to know how many formula I start with.

[Ganigumo]

SuperBidi wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

The issue is by the time you get perpetuals you're finally starting to get past your resource issues anyways.

In my opinion, Perpetual Bombs are just there to help you when you're out of resources, and as you point out they arrive too late to be really that useful.

Investing in Perpetual Bombs, as I see many people going for what I'd call "Perpetual builds", is in my opinion a bad idea. It defeats the point of the Alchemist (being a jack of all trades using its versatility to compensate its lack of power) and it doesn't work much as Perpetual Bombs are so weak that even when stacking tons of feats on them you don't end up with anything competitive.

The only Perpetual Items I find useful are Chirurgeon ones, as they give a small bonus to everyone. It gives you an idea of how I see the other Perpetual Items.

As a side note, I find the Debilitating feat chain to be too weak to be even considered. There shouldn't be a Fortitude save in the first place to make it on par with most spell debuffs (low level spell debuffs are both cheap and with a greater "accuracy" as they don't ask for a hit and a save to affect the enemy).

Most of the stuff that improves perpetuals just improves quick alchemy, I think the only feat that directly affects perpetuals is perpetual breadth.

Debilitating bomb should keep the fort save, but apply to everything hit by splash damage (so it can still work on a miss). Honestly I think making bombs with debuffs apply their debuffs to everything in the splash area in general would go a long way, since alchemist would become a consistent debuffer.

CaptainMorgan wrote:

The other problem is that new Alchemist feats are really hard to justify when the existing feats are so important to make the class function.

Agreed, they need to roll those feats into the base class or get rid of them, and make alchemist more consistent elsewhere.

[SuperBidi]

Ganigumo wrote:

Most of the stuff that improves perpetuals just improves quick alchemy, I think the only feat that directly affects perpetuals is perpetual breadth.

What I call a "Perpetual build" is a build made to maximize Perpetual Bombs. It affects other bombs, but the focus is clear on Perpetual Bombs.

Ganigumo wrote:

Debilitating bomb should keep the fort save, but apply to everything hit by splash damage (so it can still work on a miss). Honestly I think making bombs with debuffs apply their debuffs to everything in the splash area in general would go a long way, since alchemist would become a consistent debuffer.

Well, it's another way of doing it. It's just that the double check to make it work is too much of a punishment. At level 18, you can remove the Fortitude check (well, most of it). So Debilitating becomes usable only at level 18 if you spent at least 3 feats on it...

[thewastedwalrus]

Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Formulas should auto heighten. This isn't a huge thing, and mostly just saves gold, but... Purchasing separate versions of the same item is annoying and clutters up the book keeping.

That would make knowing just about all bombs and elixirs trivially difficult by level 5~ by just picking up the level 1-2 versions.

Not sure if that would be a problem but being so easy to pick all of the options instead of only the ones your character specializes in would make alchemists feel pretty same-y for most levels.

[Ganigumo]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Formulas should auto heighten. This isn't a huge thing, and mostly just saves gold, but... Purchasing separate versions of the same item is annoying and clutters up the book keeping.

That would make knowing just about all bombs and elixirs trivially difficult by level 5~ by just picking up the level 1-2 versions.

Not sure if that would be a problem but being so easy to pick all of the options instead of only the ones your character specializes in would make alchemists feel pretty same-y for most levels.

Based on what people are saying they end up feeling mostly the same anyways, since you need to flex their versatility instead of specializing in order to be useful.

[Temperans]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

2) Formulas should auto heighten. This isn't a huge thing, and mostly just saves gold, but... Purchasing separate versions of the same item is annoying and clutters up the book keeping.

That would make knowing just about all bombs and elixirs trivially difficult by level 5~ by just picking up the level 1-2 versions.

Not sure if that would be a problem but being so easy to pick all of the options instead of only the ones your character specializes in would make alchemists feel pretty same-y for most levels.

This is solved by giving Alchemist a lot more items.

Also it's not much different from other classes having virtually the same weapon/spells.

[thewastedwalrus]

Eh, my alchemist player thought they were doing fine by tossing an alchemist's fire or bottled lightning a round and administering/setting up to administer an elixir of life if someone was injured (most of the time). I'd say they were useful without always having the option of the highest level acid flask/liquid ice/etc and without being able to administer the highest level random mutagen/elixir.

Temperans wrote:

Also it's not much different from other classes having virtually the same weapon/spells.

I'd say it's more similar to the fighter having every weapon on their person ready to go, or a spellcaster that could cast most of their spell list on demand.

And that versatility is definitely one of the alchemist's specialties, but I feel that it should require at least a non-trivial amount to have the highest level items. Otherwise it would be foolish for any alchemist to not pick up most of the always-highest items in the game for a few dozen gp.

[Watery Soup]

SuperBidi wrote:

Debilitating becomes usable only at level 18 if you spent at least 3 feats on it...

We've had this (respectful) discussion in other threads so I'm not really going to go back and forth.

Dazzled gives a 20% miss chance, which is huge. If an enemy would hit on a nat 6 (75% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +3 AC (it'd be +3 AC if the enemy never crit, but dazzled also negates crits 15% of the time); if the enemy would hit on a nat 11 (50% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +2 AC.

So even if the enemy has a 50-75% chance of making the save, it's still, on average, worth more than a standard +1 AC bonus (because it also negates crits, and is stackable with everything) of whoever the enemy is attacking.

Is Debilitating debilitating? No. BEST FEAT EVAR? No. Pretty good for a 6th level feat? Yes.

Is Greater Debilitating debilitating? No. Pretty good for a 10th level feat? No.

Is True Debilitating debilitating? No. Pretty good for a 14th level feat? I'm not sure, I'll tell you when I get to 14th. But maybe. I'd still probably be using dazzling bottled lightnings over half of the time.

Would throwing in some actually debilitating conditions (blinded, confused, fascinated, immobilized, paralyzed, prone, stunned) improve the chain? Yes. Is the chain worth taking without that improvement? I'm neither convinced it is or it isn't.

Would it help set expectations correctly if the feats were renamed? If so, here's my proposal:

Feat 6: Moderately Inconveniencing Bomb
Feat 10: Inconveniencing Bomb, Part 1 (doesn't do anything until you get both parts)
Feat 14: Inconveniencing Bomb, Part 2

[Puna'chong]

Not sure if every formula should be auto-heightened, but research fields should have their respective formulae at the highest level without any more hoops to jump through. At the very least signature formulae should be auto-heightened.

[Ganigumo]

Watery Soup wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Debilitating becomes usable only at level 18 if you spent at least 3 feats on it...

We've had this (respectful) discussion in other threads so I'm not really going to go back and forth.

Dazzled gives a 20% miss chance, which is huge. If an enemy would hit on a nat 6 (75% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +3 AC (it'd be +3 AC if the enemy never crit, but dazzled also negates crits 15% of the time); if the enemy would hit on a nat 11 (50% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +2 AC.

So even if the enemy has a 50-75% chance of making the save, it's still, on average, worth more than a standard +1 AC bonus (because it also negates crits, and is stackable with everything) of whoever the enemy is attacking.

Is Debilitating debilitating? No. BEST FEAT EVAR? No. Pretty good for a 6th level feat? Yes.

Is Greater Debilitating debilitating? No. Pretty good for a 10th level feat? No.

Is True Debilitating debilitating? No. Pretty good for a 14th level feat? I'm not sure, I'll tell you when I get to 14th. But maybe. I'd still probably be using dazzling bottled lightnings over half of the time.

Would throwing in some actually debilitating conditions (blinded, confused, fascinated, immobilized, paralyzed, prone, stunned) improve the chain? Yes. Is the chain worth taking without that improvement? I'm neither convinced it is or it isn't.

I don't think debilitating is terrible myself, but you've only got like a 25% chance of actually applying it against a same level enemy. ~50% chance to hit, ~50% chance for the opponent to fail their save means you get to apply it ~25% of the time against a same level enemy. Its very inconsistent, much like bombs are in general.

[Captain Morgan]

Puna'chong wrote:

Not sure if every formula should be auto-heightened, but research fields should have their respective formulae at the highest level without any more hoops to jump through. At the very least signature formulae should be auto-heightened.

While this would still be an improvement, it would be another exception to the normal rule, and those are what make the class clunky IMO. Heightening Signature items would be annoying to track. Heightening research fields would be more acceptable, though it does leave Toxicologist out in the cold.

[Captain Morgan]

Ganigumo wrote:

Honestly I think making bombs with debuffs apply their debuffs to everything in the splash area in general would go a long way, since alchemist would become a consistent debuffer.

I don't hate it. It would also make bombs more dangerous to allies, but IMO that makes them feel more like bombs. Explosives SHOULD be hazardous.

[HumbleGamer]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Honestly I think making bombs with debuffs apply their debuffs to everything in the splash area in general would go a long way, since alchemist would become a consistent debuffer.

I don't hate it. It would also make bombs more dangerous to allies, but IMO that makes them feel more like bombs. Explosives SHOULD be hazardous.

This could be a bomb created with quick alchemy.

Trading 3 bombs ( advanced alchemy ) for 1 more powerful one may be a reasonable deal.

[Gortle]

I've never thought the alchemist was workable. They made improvements after the playtest and again in the errata. I can't find anyone to go near it.
For sure it has a few nice abilities. But you run out of resources and the trade offs are not trivial. On top of that there is nothing important that you are actually good at.

Which is all annoying as I have players who want to play an alchemist. We want the concept in the game.

[HumbleGamer]

Gortle wrote:

I've never thought the alchemist was workable. They made improvements after the playtest and again in the errata. I can't find anyone to go near it.

For sure it has a few nice abilities. But you run out of resources and the trade offs are not trivial. On top of that there is nothing important that you are actually good at.

Which is all annoying as I have players who want to play an alchemist. We want the concept in the game.

We just had one during the first EC book, and though it performed fine, a generous part of its performance merit has to be attribuited to the wizard dedication.

That player swapped on a monk on book 2, and was really glad he did it.

I didn't try it, apart from some ( many ) white room scenarios and assisting that chapter, and still I wonder whether treating him like a martial.

Now that wave spellcasters are finally out, I wonder how a "wave alchemist" may work.

- Expert weapon proficiency ( lvl 5 ) and master weapon proficiency ( lvl 13 )
- Bombs like cantrips with quick alchemy ( 1 action tocreate 1 to throw )
- Less reagents per day ( eventually, something like the alchemical study investigator, or just a progression like the poisoner/herbalist one ).

Maybe we'll see some homebrew wave alchemist soon.

[Zwordsman]

Honestly. For me. While I don't havea ton of play time in the current version of P2E. I had a ton in the playtest, and for about 6months post that... am now trying to find more g ames for the higher alchemist.

I tend to view it more in terms of bomber or poisoner. I've never done a mutagenist, or a churigen.
(which as a sidenote. Ifeel like Alchemists should havea research field, and a subresearch field. Like Starfinder Biohackers. Which means every class would have access to some things in a limited fashion. They would get less in their second research field than their first. but they would be able to use it.

I feel like a lot of the issues for me would smooth out if I got Perpetual somewhere between level 1-3.
Level 5 should be a numbers fixer-like calculated splash. but something for every research field you know.
Level 7 you get a secondary research field. As well as that number fixer.

Leave Debilitating bombs and sticky bombs as class options.
Perpetual Breadth being an option at 4.

having that "cantrip like" effect at lower level means I get to use alchemical items more readily. Furthermore, it means I can afford to use the limited daily resource to actually hand out the items.
It increases the versatility of the class-at all levels, and allows for some power ups to an extent.
With options on the table to increase power, versatilty or support as the alchemist wants.

Basically it creates a framework where they can be "that alchemist" from earlier on, without removing versatilty of the alchemy system.

------------
and yes. Absolutely I love the idea of having a 10min action to Advanced Alchemy. That would be fantastic. and flavorful! Prep a standard morning...
prep and brew more several times ov er the course of a day! its just great "alchemist thing" and they can do it while others recover Focus Points or heal up.

I have found a great deal of enjoyment in my Alchemist using Aid action to help allies attack. It makesa great 3rd action if they aren't moving. Or a second action if they aren't using perpetual+throw.
It does rely on the GM okaying a long range Aid action. Which rules RAW is allowed, as it only specifies "usually melee" meaning ranged is possible, but up to the GM to accept the Players method. (baring them taking the fighter feat)

[RoyAlan]

To the Original poster, 1st and 2nd level...
are akin to NOT having earned your stripes yet. You aren't a black belt.
You (The Character) are still learning.

Dump everything you have into bombs, make it clear to your companions that you will not be providing support healing or buffs.
the one thing an alchemist can do that a wizard can't?
hand out your bombs, share.

I have a 1st level cleric of iomedae in PFS, I do all I can with my two 1st level spell slots and three healing fonts. I hand out "magic weapon" to two allies and... Draw my sword.

I do what I can to keep my fellows alive. I have to sacrifice my own EGO to support others. I play a warpriest, and so far?
I have never cast magic weapon on myself, (and next round) followed it up with true strike.
no, not yet. I do not have the fire power.
I do understand where you are coming from.
Especially when my party is getting TPK'd by a CR 3 monster with a list of advantages larger than my entire group.