|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
So many, many years ago on the boards I posted a message like this back for pathfinder 1e, and I think it has come time to do it again. This is my list of things I have heard on the boards by people who like being trolls, or who maybe just want to be controlling. I dunno, but I've seen a lot of vitriol and bad blood on the boards, and so here is my list of 'advice' that these peoples will espouse that I think you can safely afford to skip.
1) There is no 'unplayable class.' Okay, some some classes may end up better than others. But as far as I've seen, there is no 'unplayably bad' class. In other words, all classes are viable. Sure, some may be sub-optimal or not deal as much damage, but you can still do a lot with any class. The only class that I think is actually 'bad' is the Alchemist, but if someone shows me a good build for one I'll happily change my mind. Even then, an alchemist isn't unplayable. There's plenty to be said for a smart guy in the party who can make all the knowledge checks and keep the party stocked in free drugs and AoE damage. Is he the only one who can do that? No, but if you are dead-set on playing an alchemist don't let someone else tell you that you are dumb for doing so.
2) It is not 'all about the damage.' Sure, damage is great. The faster the monster takes damage, the faster it goes down, the less damage they do to the party. That being said, there are other things to combat. A sorcerer may get swallowed whole and eaten and die by the time a fighter busts them out, but a liberator champion might have prevented them from getting swallowed in the first place. A magus may have the ability to teleport behind a wall of force to get to the enemy spellcaster. Just because X class does the most damage (typically fighter), doesn't mean they are the only class to play. Look at utility abilities, movement abilities, ancillary benefits. I'm not saying Fighters are bad, I'm saying they aren't the only game in town. The game isn't played in a giant salt plain where the fighter and monster are teleported next to each other. There are tactics and other party members to consider.
3)There is no 'one true party' setup. Sure, there may be some parties that are set up better than others, but as long as you have someone that can take care of traps, someone who can heal, a front-liner, and someone who can remove debuffs, you are good to go. I've run a game with a champion, rogue, bard, and investigator just fine (investigator went into medic.) I've had a party with a Barbarian, rogue, inventor, and Cleric. Just try to have those bases covered and go nuts. Don't let anyone tell you what you 'have' to have in your party.
4) Talk to your other PCs, and don't be a dick. If you notice that your witch isn't using their hex, ask why. Maybe they have a good reason, maybe they forgot about it, maybe you misunderstood their character. Don't be a jerk about your character. Talk with each other to see how your character can best help the party. Your job is not for your character to deal the most damage. Your job is to help the whole party have a good time.
Anyway, I'm sure there are going to be like, a million trolls who respond to this thread with things like "Magus is teh dumb, never play one1" and "alchemist is trash and you are trash for not saying that." Ignore them. Those are the guys who tend to make this message boards a less-nice place. Anyone who has legitimate questions and concerns with my list can afford to take five minutes to compose a well-thought out counterpoint, at which point I will respectfully listen to them, and probably write back a well-thought out response! I might even agree with you.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
One that I would add.
5) Just because we here on the forums end up hotly debating various problems that we find in the rules doesn't mean that the rules in general are confusing or hard to follow. Most games don't even come across 80% of the difficulties that we bring to light on these boards. And when something does come up that the rules aren't clear on, coming up with a solution that works is generally fairly easy.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the game is too hard or too easy the GM can simply adjust the encounters a little. This is the right thing to do.
Play at the level that is comfortable for you. If your group is a highly tuned party of experienced murder technicians, then you want a different game to the group that is really into the roleplaying, or the group which is tring to be as stupid as possible while staying in character, or the group that wants to stick with a tight theme. By default some PF2 modules can be a fairly tough fight. So don't be afraid to adjust.
Play the game you want.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
VampByDay, you see a different Paizo Pathfinder board than I do. Since I read only about one thread out of 20, guided by interesting titles, we might be reading different threads in the same forum.
1) Unplayable classes. In the first year of PF2, some people tried creating a tier list of the classes. The consensus was that on the SABCDF scale, where F is unplayable, all the PF2 classes were A or B. And yes, alchemist was one of the B-tier classes.
2) All about the damage. Okay, some people think that damage dealing is the optimal way to design characters. I try to persuade them otherwise. Our PF2 mavens have noticed that a typical monster can deal more damage than a PC of the same level, so the PCs have to use non-damage abilities to win.
3) One true party setup. The classic party of cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard is a workable standard for theorycrafting. But in real games, people play what they want. PF2's feats often allow PCs to serve roles that used to be class niches. For example, a magus with Battlefield Medic could be the party healer. In my campaign, the party healer is a fey-blooded sorcerer, the arcane caster is a rogue with draconic Sorcerer Dedication, the other rogue is a shortbow sniper, the archer ranger is the 2nd-best melee martial after the monk, the druid specializes in lightning bolts living up to her stormborn order, and the champion uses her velociraptor "steed ally" animal companion for attacking. And they routinely defeat twice their weight in enemies through teamwork.
4) Talk to your other party members. Talking to teammates is common sense to me, but I have seen many threads complaining about other players or the GM. We readers respond, "Did you ask them why?" This doesn't appear to be a problem with the Paizo forums; instead, it is a problem with individual campaigns.
VampByDay has provided good advice to new players, but this advice agrees with what I see most people saying in this forum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is something of a "true party setup" in that several roles have to be covered, lest the encounters become deadlier. The most obvious ones are out-of-combat healing (preferably with renewable resources) and in-combat healing.
But they can be covered in several different ways and thus do not require someone playing a specific class.
Note also that, as opposed to out of combat healing, in-combat healing will not be necessary in every combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) There is no 'unplayable class.' Okay, some some classes may end up better than others. But as far as I've seen, there is no 'unplayably bad' class. In other words, all classes are viable. Sure, some may be sub-optimal or not deal as much damage, but you can still do a lot with any class. The only class that I think is actually 'bad' is the Alchemist, but if someone shows me a good build for one I'll happily change my mind. Even then, an alchemist isn't unplayable. There's plenty to be said for a smart guy in the party who can make all the knowledge checks and keep the party stocked in free drugs and AoE damage. Is he the only one who can do that? No, but if you are dead-set on playing an alchemist don't let someone else tell you that you are dumb for doing so.
I'm a great fan of the Alchemist and still I'll discourage someone to play one if the circumstances are not met.
The main issue the Alchemist has is a lack of reagents forbidding it to last for a whole adventuring day if there are tons of fights. That's why playing an Alchemist in an AP is awful, both because you are underpowered and because you end up with no reagent for half of the day and as such don't play an actual Alchemist half of the time.I'll also discourage to play an Alchemist if one wants to play a specialized character. The class is a lot about support, unlike PF1 class, and needs to use most of its tools to be useful.
If you are in an environment where you can last (PFS being an obvious example), and if you understand it's a support class, the Alchemist's fine. It's not the most optimized class, but it's one that work.
(as a side note, the Alchemist class is badly written, so you need quite some system mastery to understand it properly)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Do account for Attacks of Opportunity.
Yes, they're less common than before, but you can't ignore them as too many people have advised. You'll have to account for the battles that do have AoOs so your PC doesn't get shut down by such a basic ability.
-Opportune Riposte gets overrated. Sure, if you like the Swashbuckler MCD already, have no good Reaction, and the 14 Charisma aligns with your PC goals, then take it since it's on your path anyway. But I've seen posters advise major alterations in PCs simply to land this not-game-changing feat when the PCs already have an excellent Reaction, one that they can expect to use regularly. Fans of it seem to think enemies will often critical fail on their attacks. That might be true for their campaigns/GM's tactics, but given that even basic monsters generally have better options than wild swings (even if it's just to Step away!) it's not something one can count on.
-In a similar vein, do build what you envision. Often I see somebody request X and get led toward Y, a completely different concept that happens to use the same base class. Unless intending to, aiming for a PF1 powerhouse gish, or building a PC whose main shtick conflicts with your class's proficiencies, it's difficult to build a bad PC in PF2.
Nearly all weapons and fighting styles are viable and competitive. The PC concept might lead to switching one's expected class, but unless shooting for a do-all, above-all superman, these concepts can be fulfilled (though it might take some levels!).
---
I also second most everything SuperBidi wrote about Alchemists with emphasis that one should distinguish between PF1 expectations and PF2's version. The Alchemist MCD on a martial often suffices if wanting a powerhouse w/ alchemy (PF1) instead of the portable supply store (PF2).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, the first point has a lot to do with PF1 in my opinion. Outside extreme cases, there are no unplayable classes/builds/characters. But if you expect to play your character "just like you did in PF1", you may discover that it doesn't work that way anymore or that it doesn't have PF1 efficiency.
And it's very easy to see as most of the classes that are considered bad, unplayable or whatnot in the boards are the ones that were overpowered in first edition. The Wizard spilled tons of ink, but you see also the Alchemist, the Magus, the Summoner...
On the other hand, the classes that were not great in PF1 and that are considered not great in PF2 (like the Investigator) don't generate that level of hate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not 'all about the damage.'
I would rephrase it as such: it doesn't need to be all about the damage. In PF1, dealing damage was such a large part of surviving combat that "good but not great damage" was a negative thing to say about a character, and "mediocre damage" was a near party-killer. There was no real option, you've got to have a massive damage output, and DPR accurately measured how good a character was.
And depending on the specific PF2 campaign, it may still be like that. The Adventures and APs do not have natural breaks, and it's both viable (and fun, for some) to keep pushing through to 5-10 combats/day. There are great environmental rules, but every combat can happen in square rooms or open plains if that's what players want. There's nothing wrong with that, if everyone has agreed.
What the difference is that PF2 doesn't need to be combat-primary. It's much easier to balance combat encounters, especially doing so on the fly, so players have the freedom to play their mechanically "weak" classes, if everyone has agreed. More non-combat encounters have been codified, so it's quite possible to run a campaign in which combat is de-emphasized or even absent.
I actually agree that there may not be enough crunch to satisfy powergamers. For those that enjoyed poring through splatbooks to Frankenstein unrelated feats into a combat monster (and I'll admit I enjoy it to a degree), I can totally understand why there's disappointment. But on the whole, for the long-term health of the system, it's a net positive because the player pool really opens up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VampByDay, you see a different Paizo Pathfinder board than I do. Since I read only about one thread out of 20, guided by interesting titles, we might be reading different threads in the same forum.
I’m glad you are having a better time on the boards than me. In the past 5-6 threads alone I’ve been called (or seen someone else called) a misogynist for saying that someone who said something bad could have matured over the course of nine years, been an idiot for playing a magus, been an idiot for playing a liberator champion, been an idiot for suggesting that a flurry Ranger is a solid class build (and that I should just play a fighter instead), been an idiot for even suggesting playing a divine summoner. . .
That’s kinda why I made this thread. Saw a lot of vitriol and wanted to try and set the record straight for newer players who may see the same thing. If you haven’t encountered these people, I am super happy. Glad one person is having a good time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many of you give the attack of opportunity info on a successful ( or a critical one ) recall knowledge?
Not saying all the time, but rather whether you consider to add that informetion among those you can ( depends on many factors ) give to players.
Reactions like that are definitely something that I've given as recall knowledge info before, and AoO isn't one of the sort of strange, esoteric Reaction abilities where I might think that requiring a critical success would be appropriate.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You made a thread where you mentioned a flurry ranger build you liked and someone else in the thread said they prefer fighters and shared a build idea of their own.
How is that vitriolic or a personal attack on you?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't the thing about Liberator champions a thread about "should a liberator respect a person's decision to engage in slavery"?
One thing about the boards is that there's a long history around here of some bad faith defenses of slavery (e.g. "Asmodeus has neutral followers") and people around here not inclined to view "I'm just playing devil's advocate" charitably when it comes to slavery.
Specifically, a Liberator does not have to respect an individual's decisions to do evil things. The tenets have a priority order for a reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a thread with some people being really silly about liberator tenets, yet.
I have also seen some people thinking that their reaction is weaker than Redeemer and Paladins. It isn't an uncommon way to be wrong, since it's less obvious just how strong the liberator is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You made a thread where you mentioned a flurry ranger build you liked and someone else in the thread said they prefer fighters and shared a build idea of their own.
How is that vitriolic or a personal attack on you?
That was not the thread I saw that argument bud, you’re good! Different thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a thread with some people being really silly about liberator tenets, yet.
I have also seen some people thinking that their reaction is weaker than Redeemer and Paladins. It isn't an uncommon way to be wrong, since it's less obvious just how strong the liberator is.
I am curious as to what makes the Liberator reaction superior to the other two, given the trigger conditions and the benefits it gives by comparison.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious as to what makes the Liberator reaction superior to the other two, given the trigger conditions and the benefits it gives by comparison.There was a thread with some people being really silly about liberator tenets, yet.
I have also seen some people thinking that their reaction is weaker than Redeemer and Paladins. It isn't an uncommon way to be wrong, since it's less obvious just how strong the liberator is.
I’m not saying it is superior, but people really sleep on it. Because the trigger is taking damage, and your friend gets to step as a free action, it is super good for interrupting action economy. Enemy has flurry of blows? After the first hit the rogue moves away and now the rest of the flurry is wasted. Enemy has grab? After the sorcerer gets hit he moves away so you can’t grab him with your next action. Even just the standard enemy hits you once, your friend can move away so the enemy has to follow instead of getting three attacks, which, against bosses, their third attack might hit. Again, it isn’t superior, but people forget just how useful it can be.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just triggering off of damaging attacks, it can often interfere with followup Strikes in a single round in even very basic encounters. That's good defensive utility. Being able to break multi-attack activities and "next action" abilities like Knockdown and Grab (all pretty common), makes it great defensive utility. The Exalt also being able to commonly break up the sort of activities that attack multiple party members before increasing MAP upgrades it to Great defensive utility.
That free Step is strong because action denial is power.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the past 5-6 threads alone I’ve been called (or seen someone else called) a misogynist for saying that someone who said something bad could have matured over the course of nine years, been an idiot for playing a magus, been an idiot for playing a liberator champion, been an idiot for suggesting that a flurry Ranger is a solid class build (and that I should just play a fighter instead), been an idiot for even suggesting playing a divine summoner
I mean, frankly, you gotta learn how to ignore it. On the Internet, everyone wants there to be one pure villain and one pure hero, and everything is either epic, or it's irredeemable trash. Nothing in between.
My first three PFS characters were the widely-panned alchemist, the widely-panned DEX-based champion, and the widely-panned divine sorcerer. Then with the APG, I made the widely-panned oracle, an orc investigator, and the widely-panned witch. Most recently, I've made a ranger (precision ranger, of course, because clearly I am very concerned about DPR), and an azarketi magus that carries around a 6 Bulk barrel of seawater.
A big Clueless-style WHATEVER to all the haters, my characters are HELLA FUN and if people think I'm an idiot, we'll see who's laughing when our party is stuck in the middle of a desert and someone needs 30 liters of salt water!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the past 5-6 threads alone I’ve been called (or seen someone else called) a misogynist for saying that someone who said something bad could have matured over the course of nine years, been an idiot for playing a magus, been an idiot for playing a liberator champion, been an idiot for suggesting that a flurry Ranger is a solid class build (and that I should just play a fighter instead), been an idiot for even suggesting playing a divine summonerI mean, frankly, you gotta learn how to ignore it. On the Internet, everyone wants there to be one pure villain and one pure hero, and everything is either epic, or it's irredeemable trash. Nothing in between.
My first three PFS characters were the widely-panned alchemist, the widely-panned DEX-based champion, and the widely-panned divine sorcerer. Then with the APG, I made the widely-panned oracle, an orc investigator, and the widely-panned witch. Most recently, I've made a ranger (precision ranger, of course, because clearly I am very concerned about DPR), and an azarketi magus that carries around a 6 Bulk barrel of seawater.
A big Clueless-style WHATEVER to all the haters, my characters are HELLA FUN and if people think I'm an idiot, we'll see who's laughing when our party is stuck in the middle of a desert and someone needs 30 liters of salt water!
No, I totally get it, and I learned long ago to ignore haters. I’m saying a newer player might misconstrue haters for actual advice. That’s why I made this thread. I know a hater when I see one 80% of the time, I’m just trying to help the newer players out there.
And to be clear:
I mean, I’ve made a thread where I said I think warpriests need to be buffed, but there is a difference between needing a buff and being unplayable. I think people forget that. ‘Suboptimal’ doesn’t mean unplayable. That is, I think, the lesson the forums have a the hardest time understanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a newer player might misconstrue haters for actual advice. That’s why I made this thread.
Okay, well, a non-sarcastic good luck, and hope you don't feel too down when people criticize you.
New players: Play whatever you want. Have fun, it's a game. As long as you don't intentionally tank your character, you should be in the Fun Zone.
It is not 'all about the damage.'I would rephrase it as such: it doesn't need to be all about the damage. In PF1, dealing damage was such a large part of surviving combat that "good but not great damage" was a negative thing to say about a character, and "mediocre damage" was a near party-killer. There was no real option, you've got to have a massive damage output, and DPR accurately measured how good a character was.
And depending on the specific PF2 campaign, it may still be like that. The Adventures and APs do not have natural breaks, and it's both viable (and fun, for some) to keep pushing through to 5-10 combats/day. There are great environmental rules, but every combat can happen in square rooms or open plains if that's what players want. There's nothing wrong with that, if everyone has agreed.
What the difference is that PF2 doesn't need to be combat-primary. It's much easier to balance combat encounters, especially doing so on the fly, so players have the freedom to play their mechanically "weak" classes, if everyone has agreed. More non-combat encounters have been codified, so it's quite possible to run a campaign in which combat is de-emphasized or even absent.
I actually agree that there may not be enough crunch to satisfy powergamers. For those that enjoyed poring through splatbooks to Frankenstein unrelated feats into a combat monster (and I'll admit I enjoy it to a degree), I can totally understand why there's disappointment. But on the whole, for the long-term health of the system, it's a net positive because the player pool really opens up.
I'd say that in pf1e DPR really wasn't the game...
All the top tier classes in pf1e were the controller classes, because in pf1e it was all about shutting down the encounter.
Sleep, color spray, grease, hideous laughter, stinking cloud/delay poison combo, phantasmal web, icy prison, icy prison mass, phantasmal killer, weird.
All of these shut down an encounter, (and this is the tip of the iceberg) HARD without doing any damage.
Playing a damage dealing class in pf1e was basically playing the mopup crew, you were there to clean up after the casters, or realign the fight by giving your casters time to land one that sticks.
Pf2e is actually more of a damage game than pf1e was! Hence why fighter is hailed as the king. Pf1e fighter was also the highest damage dealer, it's just that you didn't need damage per say in 1e, it wasn't as valuable as the ability to shut down 3/4 of the encounter with one spell.
As someone that would never ever play and Alchemist and never misses a chance to speak about their problems, the class is definitely far from unplayable (which is why my main gripe with it is that it should be getting more cool things to do, better action economy and have a more unique identity rather than crafter/item dispenser).
I've found people downplaying warnings often wind up disappointed when Casandra turns out to have had a point: as long as you see the warning coming from the general rabble and not just one rabbler.
Is there a thread summing up whats wrong with the alchemist? I was thinking about dipping ino pf2 and thats the class i was most interested in.
I'd say that in pf1e DPR really wasn't the game...
All the top tier classes in pf1e were the controller classes, because in pf1e it was all about shutting down the encounter.
Sleep, color spray, grease, hideous laughter, stinking cloud/delay poison combo, phantasmal web, icy prison, icy prison mass, phantasmal killer, weird.
All of these shut down an encounter, (and this is the tip of the iceberg) HARD without doing any damage.
The idea that these were mutually exclusive was a common mistake. Thing is, if you wanted to deal a ton of damage in short order you had to really build for it. If you wanted to play a controller caster, you only needed a handful of appropriate spells (you didn't really need to build towards it in other words).
Truly savvy players would thus do both, allowing them to be masters of almost any situation. I believe they were called god wizards.
I've found people downplaying warnings often wind up disappointed when Casandra turns out to have had a point: as long as you see the warning coming from the general rabble and not just one rabbler.
Is there a thread summing up whats wrong with the alchemist? I was thinking about dipping ino pf2 and thats the class i was most interested in.
Hi BNW,
There are quite a lot of issues with Alchemist in PF2. The class is badly written, with lots of clunky abilities, some tax feats and things like that. So you need a bit of system mastery to get the best of it.
But the biggest gripe one can have about the Alchemist is the extremely low number of reagents. If you play an AP or a campaign with many fights per day, it is crippling. If you play PFS, on the other hand, it's perfectly manageable. So it really depends on what you play.
In a home game, I'd definitely see with the GM if I can get additionnal reagents one way or another (either directly by increasing their number or by allowing salvaging them on the corpses of the enemies for example).
I've found people downplaying warnings often wind up disappointed when Casandra turns out to have had a point: as long as you see the warning coming from the general rabble and not just one rabbler.
Is there a thread summing up whats wrong with the alchemist? I was thinking about dipping ino pf2 and thats the class i was most interested in.
There are argument threads; not sure if there's a summary among them.
I believe there's a guide to Alchemists that would likely feature kinder commentary, including the pitfalls. I remember acquiring Electric Arc being advised frequently by players who've enjoyed being an Alchemist, at least to get your PC through the early levels where resource drought happens.The main unique perk IMO is that one can squeak out a +1 net bonus that no other class can (w/o spending way too much that is). It might go to +2 if the recipient is behind the power curve, but that'd be an issue for that PC's build/spending. Alchemists can also solve lots of problems on the fly or target Weaknesses too. Players have provided many examples of both except to me they're mostly problems/tactics the party should've accounted for already, as in many casters could have tackled the obstacle/dilemma too w/o dedicating themselves to a class w/ no backup abilities (i.e. Cantrips for casters) for grinding through generic combat. Most of the ways to solve this are non-Alchemist answers that anybody could contribute with, i.e. via skills, feats, or archetypes, even gold.
Just remember to look at the class with fresh eyes, with no PF1 expectations. That's where much of the disappointment lies (and running out of alchemy!). Also, it's not a martial class (nor a caster of course), it's its own niche. You might want to play a sample gauntlet or crunch some numbers.
Personally I'd go w/ another class & MCD Alchemy (and I have a Ranger build to try it with, using Precision, better Dex, & Weapon Specialization to be a better bomber). Yes, it's just dabbling and he'll run out of alchemy faster, but then he'll remain effective because it's not his whole shtick; he can still compete with a bow. As a GM, I'd outright discourage Alchemists for new players, even PF1 veterans like yourself, BNW. There is a degree of system mastery required in knowing all the resources available to brew up, and that's just to become adequate, something nearly all classes can be or surpass even with an ignorant player.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've found people downplaying warnings often wind up disappointed when Casandra turns out to have had a point: as long as you see the warning coming from the general rabble and not just one rabbler.
Is there a thread summing up whats wrong with the alchemist? I was thinking about dipping ino pf2 and thats the class i was most interested in.
The biggest telltale about the Alchemist is exactly the numbers of threads you can find here or even on reddit talking about its issues. From first impressions to detailed analysis.
Particularly, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, specially when there's better alternatives for Alchemical crafting in the game already. Such the as Investigator class with its built-in alchemist path. In fact, just the Alchemist Multiclass already offers a good dip into alchemy while not sacrificing much of your source class (or not at all if the optional rule of Free Archetype Feats is in play).
I have surfed message boards for two decades for games such as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, and Pathfinder. The worst vitriol encountered in my exposure was on the Pathfinder 'community.' I'm glad someone made this thread. I almost stopped playing because the wall of hate seem insurmountable. I'm still sickened when I think of what people said... Yep, still sickened...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have surfed message boards for two decades for games such as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, and Pathfinder. The worst vitriol encountered in my exposure was on the Pathfinder 'community.' I'm glad someone made this thread. I almost stopped playing because the wall of hate seem insurmountable. I'm still sickened when I think of what people said... Yep, still sickened...
Well you know, you should probly make yourself retch, or else you won't be able to drink potions...
I've found people downplaying warnings often wind up disappointed when Casandra turns out to have had a point: as long as you see the warning coming from the general rabble and not just one rabbler.
Is there a thread summing up whats wrong with the alchemist? I was thinking about dipping ino pf2 and thats the class i was most interested in.
I would agree with Castilliano. The class is not really bad. But it is in a strange place. There are some pitfalls to be aware of (the most notable being taking Bomber and Quick Bomber and expecting to throw 2 bombs per round and somehow being able to sustain that for more than half of a fight.)
It becomes a bit of a resource management challenge - much like the resource management of spell slots for a caster class. Trying to get the most mileage out of those reagents as possible because they are a limited resource. Unlike spellcasters, they won't get anything resembling a cantrip until level 7. Which is why a lot of the good advice that I have seen has been to get either an actual cantrip, or a good ranged weapon. Something to contribute with when an alchemical item isn't the right tool for the job that round.
Other than that most of the complaints fall into one of two categories. Either complaining about the numbers (Alchemist doesn't have as good of proficiency boosts as actual martial classes), or playstyle/theme (often other party members can use your items better than you, so being a non-entity item dispensery seems like the most mechanically advantageous option for your character).
Liberator reaction starts out good but it descales because more and more monsters get reach as you level up, making the free Step a lot less good. You definitely need the level 12 feat for it to remain as good as it was at level 1, and MC champions don’t really want it for that reason
Yeah, there is definitely a GM element to it, too. If the big monsters with reach move up to adjacent to their target (even if they are not intelligent or haven't seen the Liberator use their ability yet) it can certainly fall off. There's a chance to play around with that if you have reach and AoO on your side to make that a risk, but eventually you'll see reaches high enough that they can both be out of your reach and keep you within a Step buffer on theirs. Not exactly common from my experience, but reach 15 and 20 do come up.
There are quite a lot of issues with Alchemist in PF2. The class is badly written, with lots of clunky abilities, some tax feats and things like that. So you need a bit of system mastery to get the best of it.
But the biggest gripe one can have about the Alchemist is the extremely low number of reagents. If you play an AP or a campaign with many fights per day, it is crippling. If you play PFS, on the other hand, it's perfectly manageable. So it really depends on what you play.
In a home game, I'd definitely see with the GM if I can get additionnal reagents one way or another (either directly by increasing their number or by allowing salvaging them on the corpses of the enemies for example).
Eh, regents stop being an issue pretty early into the leveling process. Sure level 1-2 hurts, but less than being a caster usually does. Sure a caster gets cantrips and I do agree that those are the weakest levels... but even then post errata alchemists can still do their chosen thing a lot.
To put it into perspective a level 1 character would be able to make up to 15 signature items. You would have to be throwing a heck of a lot of bombs to chew through that.
But a mid to high level alchemist is simply spoilt with what they can do with reagents, especially bombers and toxicologists once perpetuals come online.
It certainly has a higher skill floor than most other classes though and can be built or played "wrong" a bit easier. Which is rare in PF2e. I would just set expectations for new players rather than direct them away from it though.
The alchemist in my AoA campaign was so often a MVP or enabled options that would have been near impossible without him. Book 5 was especially interesting with alchemy being used every day even when combats weren't in the mix.
Liberator reaction starts out good but it descales because more and more monsters get reach as you level up, making the free Step a lot less good. You definitely need the level 12 feat for it to remain as good as it was at level 1, and MC champions don’t really want it for that reason
I mean, that is only a part of what makes it a good reaction though :p. Also, I while I agree that you are more likely to run into creatures with reach at higher levels it doesn't mean that all creatures fought or even most will have reach.
Same deal with AoO for that matter. Sure it is rare in the bestiary, but many humanoids that have it will be used in multiples and repeatedly when used, rather than being done and dusted.
As for step's value when it comes to foes with reach, well
- step extending effects and feats exist
- the pc could have other means of stepping further
- not all foes will be in the same threat or square and in reach of one can still mean not in reach of others anymore
- the pc can still step on their own turn or use abilities that let them step
Admittedly it isn't as good as almost always forcing a missed action. But it doesn't make it that rare that I would consider it important to warn new players about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the Shadow of Dahak, our Alchemist's main impact on our AoA adventure was being the main reason why we stopped adventuring for the day. It was also the single stance of a player retiring a character at our table in our seven, almost eight, years of playing together. The player even gave out some items from time to time, but the 2-action cost minimum is very steep to apply a +1 to something mid battle. There was even a battle the player ran away in the middle of it and we still won.
Sometimes a Step closer to the enemy opens up a powerful turn for the target of the attack. Positioning is pretty powerful in this game.
Improved grab comes up a lot at higher levels as well... Though I'm not sure if that is more often than regular grab at low levels.
Also, while reach can disrupt the usefulness of the feature, that only applies if the creature you're worried about having reach isn't already utilizing its reach to the fullest when it fights you. So if the enemy can reach out two squares, and your ally is on the second square, your liberator's step will still move them one square out of range. It does depend on the exact positioning and turn order, because your ally may need to undo that benefit or something, but its a consideration.
If the creature is getting in close to avoid that, they're probably exposing themselves to an extra attack from the same PC who doesn't have to step in to actually strike at the creature, so it creates a natural trade off.
Also, while reach can disrupt the usefulness of the feature, that only applies if the creature you're worried about having reach isn't already utilizing its reach to the fullest when it fights you. So if the enemy can reach out two squares, and your ally is on the second square, your liberator's step will still move them one square out of range. It does depend on the exact positioning and turn order, because your ally may need to undo that benefit or something, but its a consideration.
If the creature is getting in close to avoid that, they're probably exposing themselves to an extra attack from the same PC who doesn't have to step in to actually strike at the creature, so it creates a natural trade off.
I think it's unusual for a creature with Reach to move so that their target is adjacent, unless I suppose they feel they're attacking a caster & have a Reaction against that. Most creatures with Reach want their enemies to have to spend actions to close. Yet if they themselves do close in, that 5' Step from a Liberator remains valuable.
Say a creature w/ 10' Reach attacks at Reach. Then your ally can not only Step out (helping vs. future attacks), but they can Step in (saving themself from spending an action on their turn).If the creature w/ 10' Reach moves adjacent, that 5' Step still matters. An aggressive ally can move diagonal (helping to set up a flank) while a more fragile ally can Step back. Yes, they remain in Reach, but on their turn that means they can safely Step out of Reach and cast. And if facing multiple enemies, one can position to be adjacent to more (for say an emanation or Whirlwind) or so that attackers block each other's lines of attack.
That's mild yes, compared to a Paladin smacking them, but it's tactically sound. And when you can get the whole party shuffling, that allows from some game-changing shifts in positioning, maybe even intentional traps.
Edit: Misspelling
Also, while reach can disrupt the usefulness of the feature, that only applies if the creature you're worried about having reach isn't already utilizing its reach to the fullest when it fights you. So if the enemy can reach out two squares, and your ally is on the second square, your liberator's step will still move them one square out of range. It does depend on the exact positioning and turn order, because your ally may need to undo that benefit or something, but its a consideration.
If the creature is getting in close to avoid that, they're probably exposing themselves to an extra attack from the same PC who doesn't have to step in to actually strike at the creature, so it creates a natural trade off.
I think it's unusual for a creature with Reach to move so that they're target is adjacent, unless I suppose they feel they're attacking a caster & have a Reaction against that. Most creatures with Reach want their enemies to have to spend actions to close. Yet if they themselves do close in, that 5' Step from a Liberator remains valuable.
Say a creature w/ 10' Reach attacks at Reach. Then your ally can not only Step out (helping vs. future attacks), but they can Step in (saving themself from spending an action on their turn).
If the creature w/ 10' Reach moves adjacent, that 5' Step still matters. An aggressive ally can move diagonal (helping to set up a flank) while a more fragile ally can Step back. Yes, they remain in Reach, but on their turn that means they can safely Step out of Reach and cast. And if facing multiple enemies, one can position to be adjacent to more (for say an emanation or Whirlwind) or so that attackers block each other's lines of attack.
That's mild yes, compared to a Paladin smacking them, but it's tactically sound. And when you can get the whole party shuffling, that allows from some game-changing shifts in positioning, maybe even intentional traps.
Yup, it can situationally provide either setup or protection, and if say, you have martials who AoO in your party, suddenly the movement the enemy creature has to do is triggering a bunch of attacks as well as blowing their actions, although the enemy can step themselves to try and mitigate the attacks.