| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as encounters are properly adjusted for a 2 man party, it will probably be alright
Yes, but that balancing is not an easy thing to do. I think the guidelines in the CRB start to break down a bit with fewer than 3 PCs or more than 6.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do not do this.
Alchemist is a support & utility class, not a foundational class. There are workarounds, but those go against the grain as it were, a hindrance a two-person party doesn't need to add. As you've noted, it's a force multiplier with little to multiply; its bonuses are best used on other classes. Also it requires more system mastery than other non-casters, so it's not a good first exposure for PF.
That said, there's a solid chance that the player can acquire the aspects they like about an Alchemist via another class, likely with an Archetype tagged on. Most likely MCD Alchemist, though Herbalist, Medic, & Poisoner might suit their inklings.
Want to transform into a combat monster? Animal Barbarian or maybe a Wild Shape Druid (which has perhaps the best breadth for a class, and would suit a duo well.)
Like bombs? Precision Ranger w/ MCD Alchemist throws bombs better, though they have fewer. Yet that's okay, since they're still excellent with other weapons. (Fighter too, but Ranger has the skills & breadth.)
Note I'm not just dumping on Alchemists due to notoriety. Bards are often called the strongest class, yet I wouldn't recommend one here (nor dissuade). I would dissuade any 6 h.p./level class. One of my favorites, Rogues would be hard-pressed with only one flank buddy (though if both PCs had maxed out Stealth, that'd be interesting albeit risky). And somebody focused on healing would be silly, since both PCs are going to have to contribute to offense, defense, skill, & utility. Not all classes do that so well. The players kind of have to pick a self-sufficient class, like a Champion which yes, feels quite the opposite, but one doesn't need to play the prototypical Paladin.
OR
Let them play two PCs each. Bit harder for them, but if you're new too, it's likely too much to have NPCs fight alongside them. Maybe each gets one simpler PC and one more complicated (which Alchemist is IMO).
For a two-hander party, I'd suggest going with a Mutagenist. I play an 8th level Mutagenist... he's a lot of fun. Don't believe everything you read about effectiveness, especially before Level 13. Mutagenist has the best Infused Reagents economy in the game. Right from Level 1 it's easy to have enough Reagents to have Bestial every fight and plenty left over to do other things.
The -1 AC Drawback is easy to handle with a shield. You start with Expert in Reflex Saves, so the -2 isn't a big deal... There are a lot of Classes that are only Trained in Reflex.
I also play a Bomber(currently L10) and love it, but with a small party I think you need to go Melee rather then Ranged. Nothing stops a Mutagenist from tossing the odd Bomb when it would be advantageous either.
My Mutagenist at 1st Level:
Human Ancestry, Half-Orc Heritage, Warrior
STR 16, DEX 12, CON 12, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 16
Trained in Athletics, Crafting, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Society
Ancestry Feat General Training -> Shield Block
Class Feat Alchemical Familiar
Signature Mutagens Bestial, Silvertongue
So, I wanted to lean into both Athletics and Intimidation, so I didn't invest much in Int. Alchemical Familiar gives an additional batch of Infused Reagents per day, so he's got 3 Batches to start. 1 Batch will give 3 Bestial and Mutagenic Flashback will give you a 4th fight. Leaves 2 Batches left over for whatever else you want to do.
If your player isn't interested in Intimidation, by all means lower the Charisma and up the Intelligence. Might want a different skill mix too. I highly recommend Athletics though... Gives a lot of options in a fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much lower could Charisma be? :) What do you mean leaning into Intimidation with CHA 10? What am I missing?CHA 10
<...> I wanted to lean into both Athletics and Intimidation <...> by all means lower the Charisma
Ack! I completely missed that I mis-typed. Oops! Thankfully I was within the Edit window.
Started with Cha 16. He's now 18, and will remain so until 15th level when I finally move to 19.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between a bard and an alchemist as far as being a force multiplyer is that the bard's usually targeting the whole party with buffs where the alchemist is only giving one elixir a person. Having less people to boost just means they can stretch their resources further and prepare a more diverse array of items.
Now, the class is still hard to play effectively. Not impossible, but it requires more system mastery to do well (and is easier to do badly) than most other classes. So you still not want to hand it to a first time player. An investigator or an inventor might scratch a similar itch. Both are more complicated than core classes, but not to the alchemist level, and both are pretty versatile. The investigator on particular will be great for a small party because of their absurd skill coverage.
Do not do this.
Alchemist is a support & utility class, not a foundational class. There are workarounds, but those go against the grain as it were, a hindrance a two-person party doesn't need to add. As you've noted, it's a force multiplier with little to multiply; its bonuses are best used on other classes. Also it requires more system mastery than other non-casters, so it's not a good first exposure for PF.
Strongly agree. Classes that provide bonus to other classes are good vlaue in full size and larger parties but not small parties. I wouldn't even take a bard in a 2 person party, and that is one of the best classes in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a duo, you need one spellcaster and a melee. That's the first requirement. The Alchemist is neither a spellcaster, nor its items makes up good substitutes.
Then you need versatility from both classes. The Alchemist sorta shines on this aspect, even though their terrible action economy still remains a hindrance in tough situations.
In the end, you need synergy and autonomy. The alchemist fails spectacularly on this. It doesn't offer synergy, specially since any other duo can simply buy the items that would be helpful (you can do this by putting more alchemical items as loot or as an extra) and it certainly isn't a class that can hold on its own.
I think the best option for your player would be playing a druid with either the Alchemist Archetype or Herbalist Archetype. Even better if both players have Free Archetype available.
Alchemist will only work if the players are using Dual-Class characters. Then a Wizard/Alchemist will be a force to be reckoned with.
I disagree with what is said above.
The Alchemist is quite a versatile class, with potentials in a lot of areas. Also, even if it has support abilities, it brings a lot more on the table than just support.
And Ranger + Alchemist seems like a good combo (as long as the ranger is using Piercing or Slashing weapons to benefit from poison).
Obviously, the challenge of playing with 2 characters is tough. But that's because there are 2 characters not because there's an Alchemist among them.
So I think it's fine to play with an Alchemist in a party of 2. It's even quite a good idea considering the built in versatility of the class.
I too recommend having each player play two characters. It's a lot less adjustment work for the GM, allows the new players to better learn a wider array of the rules, experience different classes and battle strategies, and--last but not least--the player in question won't have to worry about giving up his alchemist or holding the other player back in some way. (Which I'm not convinced he would; people on these forums tend to exaggerate the ineffectiveness of various options.)
It's win win.
Hey, so, have y'all considered the Dual-Class PCs variant rule? It's from Gamemastery Guide, viewable on Archives of Nethys like everything else, and it increases power and versatility more considerably than something like unrestricted Free Archetype.
Normally that's not a good thing since it's one of the few ways to really upend the otherwise solid encounter-building system, if you allow directly powerful/synergistic combinations...but a two-person party is pretty rough in any traditionally-run game, and you might very well find that power increase useful considering how restricted/vulnerable their action economy and breadth will be.
It's not that hard to implement, really, as long as they don't obsess over minimizing overlap on their already-stronger-than-normal character. You'd just give them all of the class features and proficiencies from both classes (including any different key ability scores and boosts, probably), taking the higher of HP per level, starting trained skills, and proficiency ranks granted. Automatically granted skills just apply from both, and nothing stacks or gets altered if there's direct overlap like the same skill or key ability score being given.
I probably made it sound more complicated than it actually is, even, stuffing it into a paragraph like that. :b I know you want to avoid homebrew, but a variant rule partially made with unusually small parties in mind might save some headache later.
I disagree with what is said above.
The Alchemist is quite a versatile class, with potentials in a lot of areas. Also, even if it has support abilities, it brings a lot more on the table than just support.
And Ranger + Alchemist seems like a good combo (as long as the ranger is using Piercing or Slashing weapons to benefit from poison).Obviously, the challenge of playing with 2 characters is tough. But that's because there are 2 characters not because there's an Alchemist among them.
So I think it's fine to play with an Alchemist in a party of 2. It's even quite a good idea considering the built in versatility of the class.
It is a versatile class, however, I don't think its versatility would be enough to meet the requirements of a tag team of adventurers. You need strong classes by themselves first and foremost, then you need synergy between them, this is accomplished by having a strong front-liner and a spellcaster that can bring both versatility and power. Nothing the alchemist does is something that can't be easily replicated, the thing it brings to the table is reliability and low monetary investment for that.
I would forego having +1 or an important check any day of the week if it meant my buddy lashing out with a powerful spell in a fight that can turn the tide. This only gets more prominent later on, when spells become quadratic while alchemical items remain linear and easier and easier to invest money in.
If GM is willing to dish out either more money or outright alchemical items as loot to compensate the lack of players, it just makes the Alchemist more obsolete, in my opinion.
It is a versatile class, however, I don't think its versatility would be enough to meet the requirements of a tag team of adventurers. You need strong classes by themselves first and foremost, then you need synergy between them, this is accomplished by having a strong front-liner and a spellcaster that can bring both versatility and power. Nothing the alchemist does is something that can't be easily replicated, the thing it brings to the table is reliability and low monetary investment for that.
I would forego having +1 or an important check any day of the week if it meant my buddy lashing out with a powerful spell in a fight that can turn the tide. This only gets more prominent later on, when spells become quadratic while alchemical items remain linear and easier and easier to invest money in.
If GM is willing to dish out either more money or outright alchemical items as loot to compensate the lack of players, it just makes the Alchemist more obsolete, in my opinion.
The Ranger-Alchemist couple bears a lot of complementarity. They cover nearly everything. A caster could be less synergistic. For example, with an Arcane caster you'll end up without healing, which is a big issue. I won't say that Ranger-Alchemist is the best class combination, but it's not a bad one.
Also, I think the power level is irrelevant as the GM will have to adjust difficulty anyway. A bit more, a bit less, that's not really important.
So instead of telling their player that "Alchemist doesn't work" I think they should try to make it work. In my opinion, it's far from impossible.
Dual-Class PCs variant rule.....beat me by that much!
2 PCs with Dual-Class would definitely work. The amount of refiguring will be lessened.
In that sense, I would most definitely go Alchemist/? whatever floats your boat...lol!
Dual class is great for this but does add complexity. A simpler option is to just give the characters 2 levels above whatever the adventure is set for, though your party may still need some extra versatility.