|
A level 9 bomber Alchemist has Double Brew (class feature). At 6 they took Debilitating Bomb, at 7 they got two kinds of level 1 bombs as perpetual infusions, and at 8 they took Sticky Bombs. Now they use a single action to Quick Alchemy two bombs (using Double Brew). They can clearly add an additive to one of the bombs. My question is: can they use their other additive feat to add a different additive to the second bomb? Both feats are free actions. Both have the same trigger language: “Trigger You use Quick Alchemy to craft an alchemical bomb that is at least 2 levels lower than your advanced alchemy level.” Free actions have this rules text: “ you can use only one free action per trigger, so if you have multiple free actions with the same trigger, you have to decide which to use.” In the case of Double Brew, is this a single trigger or two? You are clearly only using a single action but you are also clearly crafting two different bombs.
I think that one falls pretty cleanly under GM interpretation. One action is causing multiple triggers, so some GMs may say only one free action is allowed, buuut, it's a slightly different trigger in that it's triggering off the first item, and then again off the second, so some GMs, myself included, may say that it's a different trigger even though they're both occurring at essentially the same "time".
I can't find fault in either interpretation, really.
I looked into this a few months back (Paizo, Reddit, Discord) and could not come to any consensus, even for PFS.
Unless something has changed, it's the wicky wild wild west.
|
|
Huh, hadn't even occurred to me that there would be any controversy about Double Brew.
When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action.
To me, the only reason to even have that odd wording: "up to two batches" is because you can do Quick Alchemy with different costs, mainly (only?) Perpetual Infusion costing 0. This seems pretty straightforward - what's the controversy?
As for my original question, I guess it's encouraging that others agree that it's ambiguous. Unfortunately, since I play PFS, it would be nice to have a Society ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems pretty straightforward - what's the controversy?
I believe the issue is that Double Brew allows you to do something 'instead of spending one batch' ... and when you're using perpetual you aren't using any batches, so you can't make the substitution. The theory goes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Double Brew is badly written, as there are also cases where you can use more than 2 batches of infused reagents to Brew 2 items (Combine Elixirs).
I haven't seen anyone forbidding the use of Double Brew with Perpetual Infusions. Perpetual Infusions is already so bad...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are multiple parts in this issue.
One is that many Alchemist's features are badly written, non functional as is, or create weird situations (Alchemical Alacrity...). That should be addressed in an errata. But it won't increase the power level of the class, not by much at least.
The second is that some classes of items are too complex to be used easily. Mutagens having drawbacks make them too complicated for buffs. Elixirs are nice but there are no high level Elixirs that are not the "greater" version of a low level Elixir (the highest common non-greater elixir is level 4...). Poison is strong but also quite complex. I know some players who find it bothersome. Releasing weaker Mutagens but without drawbacks (or simple ones and not maluses and bonuses everywhere), more elixirs (especially mid-high level ones giving nice bonuses) and maybe some simplified poisons may help the class a lot without once again touching at its power level.
You can also improve the class by removing useless limitations. Bestial Mutagen being unusable before getting access to Feral Mutagen and Greater version. Bombs power dropping massively after level 12 because of the lack of runes and Master proficiency. The scarcity of reagents making the class unplayable in APs because of the length of adventuring days. Addressing all these problems should put the Alchemist on par with the rest of the classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Differentiate the gameplay depends on the specific field the alchemist choose ( they tried to do this, but IMO quite failed ).
That would be a major change to the class. I know that many people want to play a bomber without caring about other alchemical items (and in that case the top is Precision Ranger as a side note), but there are also a lot of people who like the current direction of the class: Research Fields are only small bonuses and an Alchemist is able to use every alchemical items at full power whatever its Research Field.
I'd really dislike to suddenly see Bombers having things I don't get, or get abilities pushing me to a specific kind of gameplay when I have the ability to dive between multiple gameplays with my Chirurgeon (outside strength-based gameplay, so no Bestial Mutagen for me).
Or, if they want to improve specialization through Research Fields, then keep a "generalist" Research Field that can get the non-negociable options (like the extra bomb damage and removal of Mutagen drawback in your examples) but without the smaller bonuses (current bonuses given by Research Fields).
But please, don't make a specialist out of the Alchemist. This is not the way the class behaves right now and it would be a major shift in gameplay.
Not more than you are actually cut out from poisons if you don't take the toxicologist research field.
My Alchemist has full bomb power, full poison power, full Mutagen power and full Elixirs of Life power. Everything is handled through feats currently. The benefits from the Research Fields are either available as feats or ones I would not take if they were available as feats. Before level 13, you don't get much from your Research Field. And even at level 13, many benefits are not incredible.
Feats are fine for me. With feats, you have to make a choice, but you are not forced into a playstyle. But Research Fields, nope. I don't want to play a Bomber, a Chirurgeon, a Mutagenist or a Toxicologist, I like to play an Alchemist.
Also, right now, I think Alchemist is way stronger than Bomber, Chirurgeon, Mutagenist or Toxicologist. Forcing into a playstyle would not make the Alchemist much stronger, just way easier to play.
I don't get how it is possible for you to have full poison power, when the toxicologist adds his class DC to the poisons DC, even considering the gap in terms of available injury poisons.
Also, by lvl 13 the mutagenist will be a step ahead of you, being able to drink 2 mutagens at the same time.
A bomber will always have a larger area of effect than your bombs, affecting more enemies.
I can't really see how these already existing features would be different from something similar to the ones I proposed.
Difference between fields is already a thing with the current alchemist system. But it's not enough to make the alchemist appealing on a comparison with another class.
I have my class DC to poison DC, because poisons have the same DC than your class DC (even higher at some levels). And at high level there's a feat for that: Potent Poisoner.
The Bomber can avoid splash, I've just bought a bunch of Backfire Mantles so my companions are immune to splash. Same effect.The Mutagenist can recall one Mutagen. I can't, but I'm not sad about it.
For level 13 abilities, the Poisoner one isn't very useful. I won't get the extra splash from the Bomber, it's sad but not overwhelming (I would not pay a feat for it anyway). I won't get the double mutagen, but I don't think it's anywhere close to strong.
So, no, I don't see what other Research Fields give that would increase my power as much as higher bomb damage or the ability to ignore Mutagens' drawback.
Wait a second...
Toxicologist
You specialize in toxins and venoms of all types. You start with the formulas for two common 1st-level alchemical poisons in your formula book, in addition to your other formulas. You can apply an injury poison you're holding to a weapon you're wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity, and you can change the DCs of your infused poisons to your class DC if it's higher.Normal Alchemist
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.So, if you create a poison on the go, expending a batch which could have been used to create 3x of your research field stuff, yes.
That specific poison is going to use your class DC.
Otherwise, you are going to use the poison DC.
...
You can catch up by expending a lvl 10 feat ( so from lvl 10 on ), taking Potent Poisoner ( But given it's a lvl 10 feat, let's say it's not for free )
By concentrating your poisons’ toxic components, you make them harder for victims to resist. When you craft an alchemical item with the poison trait by any means, the DC is increased by up to 4, to a maximum of your class DC.Unfortunately, it's based on the poison DC.
For example, a lvl 6 Giant Scorpion venom DC would be 26, if created with advanced alchemy, and using your class DC if created with quick alchemy. If you were able to get formula of the level you are, all the times, then you'll be fine as a toxicologist.
Look at the Injury poisons. They all have the same DC than your class DC. So I get the same DC than the Toxicologist. What I don't have is choice: I must always take the best poison available as the other ones are losing on DC. But choice is not power, I can work around the lack of choice, I would not be able to work around the lack of DC (for example).
And even if Potent Poisoner is a level 10 feat, it's not a tough price to pay to keep up with a feature that, at high level, delivers a big part of the Alchemist damage (Poison outdamages Bomb at high level).
It's a reasonable point of view, and I understand your point, though I still consider paying a lvl 10 feat a huge price ( rather than not using low level poisons, I was worried about getting the proper recipe as soon as the character level up. For example, impossible to get outside of a civilized setting ).
You gain enough recipes at every level to get nearly all the Injury Poisons of the game + all the Elixirs of Life + 2 bombs when you get the new bombs. So access is not a problem. You may lose on utility but not on power.
ps: how can poison outdamage bombs at higher level if you have either to hit and the enemy fail a save? Do you mean that the average normal blow ( from the average weapon ) is enough to keep up with the bomb damage and that the poison damage is an extra?
My martials take care of hitting the enemy. If you compare the expected damage of poison when the enemy is hit (so before the save) and the expected damage of a bomb with no MAP, you'll see that the poison outdamages the bomb at some level (and especially at high level, when poisons start rolling loads of dices).
I'd like to also "play" the alchemist, rather than giving all my stuff to my party members.
Well, that's where bombs come into play.
But giving out stuff to your teammates and buffing/healing them is a big part of the class. If you dislike support classes, clearly, Alchemist should disappoint you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't, though I recognize it works his best as a public tool dispenser.I'd like to also "play" the alchemist, rather than giving all my stuff to my party members.Well, that's where bombs come into play.
But giving out stuff to your teammates and buffing/healing them is a big part of the class. If you dislike support classes, clearly, Alchemist should disappoint you.
Your sentence sounds as if the Alchemist is a "passive" character who can sit on the bench while waiting for the party to kill the enemies.
A part of your power is given to your teammates through Poison, mostly, and a bit Elixirs (even if, in the case of Elixirs, it's mostly true when you are lucky to play with a Monk as most characters have their hands full or not many actions to drink your stuff).
Mutagens will be refused by most characters because of their drawbacks.
But still, 2/3rd of your power is carried through your own actions. So, obviously, they will have a lower impact than most character actions, but if you sit on a bench you cripple the party effectiveness. That's the case for all support characters. I mean, without the Fighter using the sword, Bless and Inspire Courage are useless.
Also, unlike most support characters, the Alchemist really feels its impact. Poison, unlike buffs, are handled by you as noone wants to learn them. And even when someone else in the party uses one of your Elixirs, you are often the one rolling the dice (if it's an Elixir of Life, which is the most common Elixir you hand out to party members).
It is sometimes viewed as a drawback, as you buff others but they don't feel like they are the one contributing. But once your poison starts to roll enough dice or give nasty AC penalties, they are very happy to be "poison dispensers".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But please, don't make a specialist out of the Alchemist. This is not the way the class behaves right now and it would be a major shift in gameplay.
I mean, letting someone else specialize doesn't prelcude your ability to generalize.
it's definetly impossible to be simultaneously good with every field.
Hard disagree. There are five feats that increase either damage, action economy or DCs. You can have all of them. The rest of the feats and abilities are not increasing your power but your options. So, obviously, my Alchemist doesn't have all the bomb options and all the poison options and so on. But when she throws a bomb, her bomb has exactly the same effect than a Bomber's one. Her poisons have exactly the same effects than the Toxicologist's ones.
The only thing she won't get that is a direct increase in power is the extra splash area from the bomber at level 13. So, pretty minor considering that bombs drop at level 13.I mean, letting someone else specialize doesn't prelcude your ability to generalize.
If they add a "Generalist" Research Field, I agree. But if they keep current Research Fields and increase the specialization by pushing them towards a specific way of playing, I disagree. Off course, I could continue to play my generalist Alchemist by ignoring the new options, but that'd be stupid.
If they rebalance/rewrite the Alchemist, I hope they will keep in mind the generalist style of play it currently has.As a side note, as is, the Alchemist is balanced if you play it as a Generalist.
There are issues with the class, mostly because some options are too weak at some levels (Bestial Mutagen before level 10, Bombs before level 3 and after level 12). And there's the crippling issue of number of reagents that forces Alchemist out of APs.
But if you play it as a generalist, you can switch between the options depending on your level and the Alchemist is fine. Actually, it can even be strong if you have the proper party (I play mine in PFS, so having the proper party is a very variable thing).
All those options that you skip are directly affecting the effectiveness of your items.
?Using the bomber as an example, if you only pick up calculated as you say for damage:
You have shorter range, shorter aoe, worse action economy, and do half of the debuffs on a given bomb or less than half the persistent damage.i would hardly call that "equal".
Let's take that example as it's an easy one. My Chirurgeon will have Quick Bomber, Calculated Splash and Expanded Splash (the 3 tax feats for bombs) and actually also Far Lobber but at higher level. So, the only thing your Bomber has when using Bombs prepared with Advanced Alchemy is extra range and extra splash at level 13. And range is something I can work around by just positioning myself closer to the enemies (I agree that I sometimes throw a bomb at a range of 5-6 squares, but it roughly happens once per adventure so it's not crippling).
On the other hand, I won't have the options to use Perpetual Bombs or Quick Alchemy (well, I can use Quick Alchemy but it's very bad as I don't have any Additive). So, as I say: My bombs are the same ones the Bomber is launching. I just have less options.While toxicologist, as a different example, has less feats that make him beter with poisons, he can pick up loads of archetype feats that actually allow him to better deliver his poisons himself, giving him effectively +2 to all the DCs compared to your poisons that you have to give to allies. You cannot pick those feats, because you are picking "generalist" feats instead.
He also has a much wider selection of poisons to chose from, thus much higher selection of debuffs at any given level, exactly due to how he's not forced to use the ONE poison that's at level appropriate DC.
Let alone that not even all levels have level appropriate poisons, so on random levels your "generalist's" poison support just vanishes to reappear on a different level.
Similarly, I will rarely use poison myself (I sometimes use poisoned Crystal Shards) as my main offensive option is bombs. And I will only use the highest level poison (which is always among the best ones available). Also, I don't have random levels where my poison support vanishes, the lack of poison options is a high level one and Potent Poisoner will allow me to keep an up to date poison.
Once again, lack of options, not lack of power.A mutagenist has more than enough free feats to archetype into either defensive options or offensive options to take advantage of his mutagens 10x better than an alchemist with neither options because he is spending his feats elsewhere.
Mutagens are strong for skills. I don't feel Mutagens are close to strong during combat. The Mutagenist will certainly take tons of feats to dive into melee combat, something I don't care about as I throw bombs as my main offensive option. Also, as I'm dex-based, Bestial Mutagen is out of the question.
So, my Alchemist has the Bomber's Bombs, the Toxicologist's Poison and the Mutagenist's Mutagens. I've just chosen my fighting style by taking what I consider the best of all worlds. And it's currently possible as the Research Fields don't have direct power increase and because there are not that many tax feats (Calculated Splash, Expanded Splash, Potent Poisoner/Toxicologist Field, Alchemical Familiar and Quick Bomber/Sticky Bomb (if you prefer Quick Alchemy or Advanced Alchemy so Quick Bomber is the classical choice)).
And that's not even breaking into actual reagent managment and how thin you will be spread if you try to do everything at once.
"forcing the alchemist out of APs due to reagents" is 1000% also worse when you try your approach which actively hurt you in that regard.
I agree. We can take the problem one way or another: Either we buff the Alchemist without increasing the number of reagents and there are tons of abilities that can hardly be used (Quick Alchemy) and you often end up being a peasant with a crossbow at low level. Or we increase the number of reagents so all Alchemists will be able to use more Alchemist's stuff and as such there's no need to buff the class much. I prefer the second solution as ending up being a peasant with a crossbow is something that should never happen on a regular basis in my opinion.
Currently, I play my Alchemist in PFS as adventuring days are short (3 fights on average). I've thought about switching to other Research Fields, but that wouldn't change anything in my build nor my playstyle (besides Potent Poisoner, obviously). The best options are available to all Research Fields. Only the specialized options are limited to one Field or another.
As a side note, since the release of the Demolitionist giving access to Expanded Splash at level 12, the best Bomber is the Precision Ranger. Precision + Gravity Weapon + Demolitionist for Calculated/Expanded Splash and you nearly outdamage an Alchemist 2 to 1.
If what you really want to play is a specialized Bomber, don't play an Alchemist. And I don't think there's any amount of buff that would change that.
How's the ranger going to get bombs of his level?
Alchemist Dedication.
The ranger is a Precision Ranger with Gravity Weapon using the bombs he gets through Alchemist Dedication (so he can even buy a few higher level ones for bosses).
The Alchemist is a Bomber with all damage increasing feats.
I've used d6 bombs, which are way better for the Ranger as most of it's damage doesn't come from the bomb dice. With Alchemist's Fire, the damage difference is lower but still vastly superior for the Ranger.
I am still convinced that to make up with other classes, deeper specialization buffs are required.
I play an Alchemist in PFS, so the party changes all the time and I have no issue to be on par with other characters (outside of level 1-2 where there's nothing you can do with an Alchemist). When you don't have reagents issues, the Alchemist is perfectly playable. But it's a complex class, it's way easier to look at the Fighter damage output and say "This is strong". Alchemist brings damage, buff, debuff, utility and skills. It's way harder to judge as it's also very dependent on the player.
imo, a "support" alchemist can be played. One that tries to do a bit of everything, but that doesnt mean AT ALL, that this approach is equal (or even close) to a specialist's approach in his own field.
And the fields provide that distinction.
Stronger abilities on the fields do not make the generalist worse, they just make the specialist better, making him at least approach the other classes in effectiveness on their role.
(p.s. i'm not saying that a bomber (as an example) nevr prepares a mutagen or two, or some healing or a bit of utility, but that's completely different from comparing him to a chirurgeon who has spent enough reagents to have his party covererd with elixirs and is keeping enough open reagents to maximize in combat healing, and etc)
I wonder how much of the disagreement is coming from a different definition of terms, because I've always considered my alchemist to be more of a "support", but by your definition I don't think he would be, as he's also clearly more of a bomber than he is a mutagenist or a poisoner.
Pretty much all of his feats (if not actually all of them, I'd have to double check) either go into his wizard archetype to give him some extra support options, or in feats that make his bombs better. Still, he learns quite a few elixirs, mutagens, and typically a poison every level or 2. And at the start of the day he'll prep a couple batches of juggernaut mutagen (the 2 front-liners use it fairly regularly), a batch of my most recently learned poison (the rogue likes to have poison pre-applied to his weapon before combat starts), and some elixirs of life just in case.
It's not the feats, it's really the reagent allocation. If your reagent allocation is balanced between all of the Alchemist's features, I'd say you play a support Alchemist. If you have 50% of your reagents allocated to one specific type of items, you are specialized.
For example, my Alchemist's classical use of reagents contains 6-8 poisons, 6-8 bombs, 3-6 Elixirs of Life and either a few reagents for Quick Alchemy or 2-4 utility items specific to the adventure. I don't produce much Mutagens as I don't find them good enough before level 11 (also, I currently don't have enough reagents to have 2 Mutagens of the 4 main types).
Superbidi have you also experienced any game with 5/6 players as a support alchemist?
Figured out that my view is partially obfuscated by have played this 2e always with 1 DM and 5 players.
Wonder how an extra character may influence an alchemist.
I've played games with 3 (+ a useless pregen) to 6 players even if in general the party size is closer to 5-6 than 3-4.
It really changes your positioning. With 6 players, you can end up with so many poisoned weapons that you can nearly step back from the fights. At the same time, the reagent cost is high so you also end up with less items for you (to be able to fully support 6 players for 3 fights and at the same time have a good bunch of items for you, you need to be quite high level). In smaller groups you take a more active role, but I don't find it to be that much of a problem. But I haven't played past level 12 when bombs damage starts to drop so much that you have issues taking an active role.
poisoner: since you are not using your poisons, you have -2 to the DC compared to an alchemist that uses his poisons, since the alchemist will always benefit from the "flatfooted gives -2 to saves" while you will never have that.
2 DC is a huge difference, it's a whole proficiency tier difference.
And my Alchemist outdamages the poisoner even with his +2 to DC. Because Bombs deal more damage than a poisoned attack from an Alchemist, they are more action efficient (I don't have to get to melee) and they are not dependent on having access to Flat-Footed.
as is the ability to cherrypick the debuff you want, that you will never have, and the ability to always have dc appropriate poison, which for certian levels you also never have.
The poisoner can cherry pick debuffs, I can debuff and damage constructs and undeads. And as I said, if you look at the actual debuff you can choose, you'll see that the highest level poison is nearly always the best choice and never a bad one.
bomber, you are also lacking all the additives that actually give tremendous bonuses, plus you are lacking the actual reagents to use said additives.
But the pure Bomber is lacking the poisoned weapon my ally is wielding which gives more bonus and more damage than your additive for 0 action cost and same reagent cost.
also you lack the ability to at will throw great debuffs without spending resources for when you dont need to burst.
You mean I lack perpetual bombs. Perpetual Bombs are so bad I have never even considered using them.
As a side note, I have a Bird Animal Companion that debuffs way better than a Debilitating Bomb. Debilitating is also really bad.And I find Quick Bomber Sticky to not be worth the action cost. And it greatly reduces your damage per reagent.
Also I target 3 fights per day with my reagents (I'm level 7). I'm not sure you can go through way more fights than that with your builds, so I'm not even sure they would greatly outlast my Alchemist. But I agree it is built for PFS and I'd never consider playing an Alchemist in an AP as the lack of reagents would just bother me too much.
and once more, making the fields stronger will not somehow make your character worse.
Obviously. But buffing specializations will increase the specialization of the class. And my build may end up uselessly complicated or even weak. If you buff specialization enough you end up killing versatility (like in PF1 where noone does anything but their one true action).
If Paizo buffs Alchemist, I'd like them to take into consideration the ones who play generalist Alchemists, which is in my opinion the only build that can currently keep up with other classes efficiency (even if it's during a shorter period of time than a specialist and it is more complicated as you have to balance your reagents well and master all the aspects of the Alchemist).