I think the alchemical chart is bad but also it's kinda buying an item to replicate a feat, I also think the feat is not good but thinking about it from that perspective I can see how it got made
As bonkers as is sounds, the Feat is significantly worse, minus the hand thing.
Enduring Alchemy L4:
"You’ve learned how to make your personal energy last just a little bit longer when quickly brewing ad hoc concoctions. When using Quick Alchemy to create an alchemical tool or elixir, that tool or elixir remains potent until the end of your next turn, instead of losing its potency at the start of your next turn."
No bombs, no poisons. And! It only extends the potency for three more actions, the end of your turn instead of at its start.
Absolutely wild.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also note that anyone who is using an alchemical chart probably isn't buying it with gold, they are just making it from advanced alchemy.
No freaking way, that's totally valid RaW, if you can get the formula.
"During your daily preparations, after producing new infused reagents, you can spend batches of those infused reagents to create infused alchemical items. You don't need to attempt a Crafting check to do this, and you ignore both the number of days typically required to create the items and any alchemical reagent requirements. Your advanced alchemy level is equal to your level. For each batch of infused reagents you spend, choose an alchemical item of your advanced alchemy level or lower that's in your formula book, and make a batch of two of that item. These items have the infused trait and remain potent for 24 hours or until your next daily preparations, whichever comes first."
0 mention of consumable being a required trait.
That also means the Sun Dazzler, Flamethrower, hell even wearable armor like the Ooze Skin, or the actually useful Spider Collar, are all valid daily prep items?
That... is seriously bizarre. Also hilarious that you can't only make 1 of them, you have to make them in pairs. At least the Spider Collars actually would be appropriate to pass them around.
That might be the craziest thing I've learned this whole thread.
Another way to consider it: Any Toxicologist worth their salt is going to have at least 11 Batches of Infused Reagents available when they hit 7th. Likely, they'll have 12 thanks to an Alchemical Familiar. That's enough to make four Quicksilver Mutagens and up to 27 doses of the poison of their choice, Such as Antipode Oil (Yay Virulent) or Giant Wasp Venom with its nice Clumsy debuffs.
Is it really a problem to let them make infinite Giant Centipede Venom? Even with the Toxicologist Class DC buff, it's just not that great, and they can get through the day with the good stuff... even if they're handing it off to some of the party members.
Another way to consider it: Any Toxicologist worth their salt is going to have at least 11 Batches of Infused Reagents available when they hit 7th. Likely, they'll have 12 thanks to an Alchemical Familiar. That's enough to make four Quicksilver Mutagens and up to 27 doses of the poison of their choice, Such as Antipode Oil (Yay Virulent) or Giant Wasp Venom with its nice Clumsy debuffs.
Is it really a problem to let them make infinite Giant Centipede Venom? Even with the Toxicologist Class DC buff, it's just not that great, and they can get through the day with the good stuff... even if they're handing it off to some of the party members.
From a player psychology standpoint it is a night and day difference, and allows them to instead handwave the whole party being poisoned, every combat. And the Reagents are still just as valuable, and can now be spent on other things.
Such as the real Tox terror of Inhaled poisons. Tox gets scaling Class DC on all infused poisons, daily prep too. An Inhaled in-hand (or two) make the perfect openers for combat, only needing 1 action to force a save-or-suck effect w/o a need to land a hit.
Sneezing powder is slowed 1 on fail, or slowed 1 for a min on crit fail.
Yellow Musk is a Will save, and is really good if double (or more) - popped to stack exposures (allies can help).
Affliction only lasts 2 rounds (but there's a Feat for that) yet if you hit stage 2,:
"Stage 2 fascinated by the poison cloud, and can use no actions but to move closer to the cloud’s point of origin (1 round)"
A full "your turn is gone" effect. And those clouds linger 1 min each.
.
The bigger issue though, is that because Quick Alch scales to Class DC other Alchemists can get most of the Tox's power budget w/ just the one L8 Breadth Feat. They bypass the core Tox perk of getting Class DC on their Infused poisons.
Alchemist is already an unplayable mess, I don't see why we need to make it any worse than what it already is.
Short of playing with a Superstition Barbarian (who is just as bad by the way), or some Mortal Healing characters, there is no justification to play an Alchemist over any other character mechanically.
In my experience, Alchemist is far from an unplayable mess. I'm playing three of them: L11 Bomber and L9 Mutagenist in PFS, and L5 Bomber in Outlaws of Alkenstar. All three have been a lot of fun to play so far. Maybe I'll change my mind when the PFS Bomber hits 13th, but I kinda doubt it.
That's pretty far off topic for this thread though.
Yes, clearly. The class is quite clunky with a lot of problematic abilities and feats. It is also not the strongest out there.
But on the other hand, it's mechanically unique. There are far more mechanical justifications to play an Alchemist than a Fighter as the second one doesn't have any unique feature.
And in deft hands (with a lot of system mastery) the class is fine and far from unplayable.
Yes, clearly. The class is quite clunky with a lot of problematic abilities and feats. It is also not the strongest out there.
But on the other hand, it's mechanically unique. There are far more mechanical justifications to play an Alchemist than a Fighter as the second one doesn't have any unique feature.
And in deft hands (with a lot of system mastery) the class is fine and far from unplayable.
+2 to hit more than anyone else and exclusive feats is not a unique feature?
+2 to hit more than anyone else and exclusive feats is not a unique feature?Yes, clearly. The class is quite clunky with a lot of problematic abilities and feats. It is also not the strongest out there.
But on the other hand, it's mechanically unique. There are far more mechanical justifications to play an Alchemist than a Fighter as the second one doesn't have any unique feature.
And in deft hands (with a lot of system mastery) the class is fine and far from unplayable.
Nope. Fighter feats are available through so many Archetypes they can hardly be called "exclusive". And +2 to hit is no mechanical feature, it's just a bonus.
But I feel that when you say there's no mechanical justification to play an Alchemist, you don't actually speak of mechanics but just of optimization.
Alchemist is already an unplayable mess, I don't see why we need to make it any worse than what it already is.
Short of playing with a Superstition Barbarian (who is just as bad by the way), or some Mortal Healing characters, there is no justification to play an Alchemist over any other character mechanically.
This thread seems more like finding a glitch that nobody thought off because of how weird the rules of the class are.
Its not that they are "becoming weaker" if he is right (wish FAQ button was still around), its that people were playing it better than it was written in the first place. Which would honestly not surprise me give how alchemist feels like a last minute rush job as they tried to scramble to remove the failed resonance system.
People were playing it the way it was written, it is not a glitch or people running it better than intended, it was meant to work in a way and it does work in that way, if it wasn't meant to work in that way the entirety of the processed trait would be pointless because they could just write "this doesn't work with quick alchemy" or they would specify that the processed trait does something with the effect duration
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+2 to hit more than anyone else and exclusive feats is not a unique feature?Yes, clearly. The class is quite clunky with a lot of problematic abilities and feats. It is also not the strongest out there.
But on the other hand, it's mechanically unique. There are far more mechanical justifications to play an Alchemist than a Fighter as the second one doesn't have any unique feature.
And in deft hands (with a lot of system mastery) the class is fine and far from unplayable.
Nope. Fighter feats are available through so many Archetypes they can hardly be called "exclusive". And +2 to hit is no mechanical feature, it's just a bonus.
But I feel that when you say there's no mechanical justification to play an Alchemist, you don't actually speak of mechanics but just of optimization.
Proficiency not being a mechanical feature sounds absurd to me, given that it has mechanical implications for a given character, such as getting more from other features, and this is more than just for Fighter Weapon proficiency. If it wasn't a mechanical feature then there would be no benefit to taking a Fighter over any other martial class, and feats that scale with proficiency wouldn't have that scaling. Legit, Fighters would be the next Alchemist if they had the same proficiencies as everyone else, so saying it's not a unique feature doesn't work, especially when nobody else in the game gets it.
To a point. I can definitively say that a lack of proficiency boosts has caused our current Alchemist player to doubt their purpose of being present in a party, but even without factoring that in, they don't get much to compensate for whatever features they get. A 5th level feature they acquired as a Chirurgeon is terrible and does absolutely nothing for them, whereas we got Expert Weapon proficiency, making us more effective against enemies. When proficiency boosts are better than actual class features, it's a problem. Alchemists not getting any proficiency boosts compared to other classes might have been fine if they got other things to compensate. But when those other things are either useless or subpar compared to proficiencies, are they really a mechanically sound class?
But as written it already works fine.You'd have to eliminate whole sentences off traits (or insert new ones making item duration=effect duration) to reach OPs interpretation.
I will say that the Processed Trait blurb is either in conflict w/ the class' intended mechanics (not very likely at all)
or, RaW, any Alch can take the Breadth Feat can use/spread infinite, Class DC injury poisons for their party.
IMO, while it's an exploit/oversight that should be house-ruled w/ some sort of cap/limitation, I've been swayed to the position that the inf, all day, Quick Alchemy injury poison is RaW.
I've also been swayed to the opinion that much of the Alchemy stuff from the Treasure Vault could have used some more time in the oven.
Proficiency not being a mechanical feature
You misuse the notion of mechanical feature. But anyway, that's not really important to the discussion.
Alchemists not getting any proficiency boosts compared to other classes might have been fine if they got other things to compensate. But when those other things are either useless or subpar compared to proficiencies, are they really a mechanically sound class?
Once again, power level has nothing to do with being mechanically sound.
Anyway, some people manage to play the Alchemist. So it looks like the game is not just about proficiencies. The Alchemist main class feature is to use Alchemical Items and their weapon proficiency is not that bad (until high level where for no reason they stop at expert).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proficiency not being a mechanical featureYou misuse the notion of mechanical feature. But anyway, that's not really important to the discussion.
Alchemists not getting any proficiency boosts compared to other classes might have been fine if they got other things to compensate. But when those other things are either useless or subpar compared to proficiencies, are they really a mechanically sound class?Once again, power level has nothing to do with being mechanically sound.
Anyway, some people manage to play the Alchemist. So it looks like the game is not just about proficiencies. The Alchemist main class feature is to use Alchemical Items and their weapon proficiency is not that bad (until high level where for no reason they stop at expert).
Then we will agree to disagree as to what is and isn't mechanics for a class.
I am not buying that. If the class is mechanically sound as you claim, then its late-game proficiencies shouldn't matter, because it is completely divorced from their mechanical features.
Of course, alchemical items are bad and don't offer anything special other than maybe functioning against antimagical effects/entities, which are a rarity, not a regular thing, and even then they are weighted against the players, by design.
It doesn't matter how many different Alchemical items they produce, none are good enough to devote a class to them, and even if they do, an NPC does everything a PC does but better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't argue that its not mechanically unique, but in the way a bicycle with oval wheels is also "unique".
No, the class is mechanically unique because no other class is similar. It is clunky, but mechanically unique.
From an optimization and from an ease of play/enjoyment of play you're better off just playing a support caster like a bard.
I love playing my Alchemists, I'd never play a Bard even with a gun on my temple (the class mechanics are completely boring). Don't assume everyone loves the same things as you.
You mention system mastery, but how much of that system mastery is actually meta-knowledge?
I don't know what meta-knowledge you're speaking about. I'm speaking of system mastery.
Not having something like cantrips or focus spells to fall back on makes any campaign with long adventuring days a slog. Rationing your reagents generally just makes the class feel like dead weight.
The only point I agree with you. The Alchemist is strongly limited on resources and playing one in an environment with long adventuring days will clearly be subpar (in every aspect). The Mutagenist can last longer, but still you'll need rather short adventuring days.
That's a part of the system mastery needed to play one: Don't play an Alchemist in an environment that won't be fine for it. Long adventuring days are hard, also environments where your adaptability is not rewarded (like AV which is mostly about combat).
You can say that PFS makes the Alchemist looks good, or just that the Alchemist works fine in PFS. 2 different ways to look at the same thing.
Overall, I'll never say the class is "fine" as is. Just that, with proper system mastery, you can have a blast playing one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also in Abm Vlts, and yeah, even when we get bloodied early after a fight #2, it still feels like I'm always rationing my Reagents so tightly that I might as well be doing titrations.
All sorts of unexpected pain points. I'm a Chiurgeon (+Medic now), and the L7 Skinstich salve seems right up my alley. Except, it needs to be drawn first, and held in hand to be used. Battle Medicine is already constrained, and needing to spend that action, on top of the resources, is a big ask.
Moreover, like with the Numbing Tonic not getting the Healing trait, the Skinstich is not an elixir. Chiurgeon demands both for the bonus, so I can make those items as effectively as bombs, it sucks.
Thankfully, my GM is letting the familiar's Toolbearer work with the Salves, so I actually use that one.
Problems like that pop up ll the bloody time with this class, and it feels like I can never really get in a groove before hitting a pothole that either deletes a plan as invalid, or needs serious GM leeway to fix.
-------------------
I think just giving the Alchemist full Martial weapons could do wonders for the class. Stop forcing them to spend their limited Reagents to make half-decent Strikes, jeez.
Stranding them with Simple weapons otherwise is seriously not OK. Everyone needs a valid fallback, and their accuracy is already lower.
I think the concept of the Alchemist either needs to give them a real set of Alchemical combat tools that only Alchemists can use, like deployable Alchemical Contraptions, or just actually balance the class around using Alchemical items as a side dish.
Even going all-in on Bomber seems terrible.
For 2 class Feats, any Alch can get Wiz Dedication --> Basic Spellcasting.
3 of 1st, 2nd, 3rd level spells per day, cantrips, wands, staves.
That is the low bar that the Class Feats need to compete with, and they don't.
Even the late-late game stuff like Extended Elixir --> Perpetual Elixir is honestly a tough call. All you're doing with the Alch option is really a convenience thing, just duration that's extended, truly 0 new options or enhancements.
Alchemist Feats are a joke, and not the funny kind.
Don't hate on superstition barb. It might be bad, but the class Chassis actually works. Its not like it somehow breaks barbarian by forcing them to use finesse weapons or something.
It doesn't break them by shoehorning them into finesse weapons. It breaks them by shoehorning them into non-magical healing options, which are always worse than magical healing options, and a large amount of difficult encounters (AKA the encounters that really matter) are balanced on being able to heal in-combat regularly, of which non-magical can do once, maybe twice, before being effectively tapped out.
Compared to a Champion, a Superstition Barbarian is far more limiting in the types of characters you can play with (otherwise you break Anathema and basically don't get any benefits for being a Barbarian), since the amount of compositions that rely on magic far outweigh the ones that don't, say, play by a certain set of rules.
I was thinking of all the classes as bikes, I probably should've been a little clearer.
I got it, and that's why I disagree. It's not a bike with oval wheels, it's something else with oval wheels. It's rather different than all the other classes.
Meta-knowledge is stuff you know, that your character doesn't/wouldn't like knowing enemy weaknesses (among other things).
I see, but I'm speaking of system mastery, not metagaming (which is akin to cheating, something I don't advise obviously).
This is a bit of what I'm talking about, sure you want the class to fit into the setting, but needing to ask the DM how long adventuring days are, or if you can take advantage of alchemist's adaptability feels like meta gaming to me.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. If the GM can't tell you what the campaign is about, if it's just combat and big dungeons all over it or if you can expect investigation, roleplay and other things, there's a big issue. All the GMs I know answer this kind of questions as everyone needs the answers to make a character who fits in. Bringing a Barbarian in a campaign which is all about stealth and urban investigation will be as disappointing as bringing an Alchemist in a dungeon-heavy campaign.
Other classes can be stronger or weaker based on the circumstances too, but I think alchemist is unique in how badly it can make or break the class.
And I still fully agree with that. The class is badly written, it has obvious pain points that you can circumvent if you play your Alchemist in the right environment and/or with a strong build and tactical mastery. But if you can't circumvent the pain points, either because you lack the mastery or because you got misleading information, then it will lead to disappointment. I hope the remaster will at least remove the reagent issue which is the most annoying and obvious one.
It doesn't break them by shoehorning them into finesse weapons. It breaks them by shoehorning them into non-magical healing options, which are always worse than magical healing options, and a large amount of difficult encounters (AKA the encounters that really matter) are balanced on being able to heal in-combat regularly, of which non-magical can do once, maybe twice, before being effectively tapped out.
You don't really need healing. I play a lot of healers (Angelic Sorcerer, Oracle, Chirurgeon Alchemist, Angelic Summoner) and I can say that the importance of healing is overinflated. I've even thought of retraining out of Divine Evolution on my Sorcerer as I was extremely rarely using it, so even one Heal per adventuring day was an exception. I've seen parties with extremely low healing output thrive as much as parties with a Cleric.
I still agree on the party compostion, but for me the biggest issue is the Bard as compositions affect you no matter what per RAW. But as long as you avoid playing with support casters, you can play a Superstition Barbarian just fine. It's a niche build, and it works better at low to mid levels, but it works better than people think.
If I'm not mistaken an "adventuring" day on Golarion is the same length as any other day - 24 hours. Personally I think this whole concept of "adventuring" day is much ado about nothing.
If I'm not mistaken an "adventuring" day on Golarion is the same length as any other day - 24 hours. Personally I think this whole concept of "adventuring" day is much ado about nothing.
Alchemists are designed to use Bombs as their strikes.
Imagine if every table required you to track every arrow. And that by LvL 6, prepping *10* is still half your whole budget for that 24 hours.
And for every arrow you prepped, you couldn't make a buffing mutagen, healing elixir, ect.
.
Alchemists more than any other class either need the foresight to go off-script and find some other fallback, such as spending a precious General Feat on Martial Weapons for that beautiful Gakgung, or something like 2 Feats into Wiz for 5 cantrips and 3 spells of rank 1, 2, & 3.
.
If you don't go off-script, you get all the issues discussed here. If you run out of Reagents, that's it.
If you planned even a little poorly, you cannot throw those elixirs of life as weapons, and are in deep shit.
.
The Perpetual Bombs are honestly a trap, and I recommend any not-Bomber spend the Feat somewhere else. Like an Archer Dedication.
This is why Alchemists should not adventure solo. :-)
There's a difference between what the campaign is about from a broad sense and the specifics. Its the difference between the setting and the plot. I'll point to abomination vaults and extinction curse here, abomination vaults is very clear its a big long dungeon crawl. Extinction curse follows a travelling circus, but the first book has 2 dungeons and several days worth of high encounter days. I'm not willing to say either is "bad" either, if you spell everything out at the start there's little to surprise the players with, they're different approaches. The types of encounters and enemies you face, as well as the length of adventuring days and number of rests are often not directly connected to the setting of the campaign, but the details of the plot instead. Two people could both write a campaign about crime fighting in a dirty city, and one could have mostly short, one encounter per day adventures, while the other could have long adventuring days trekking through criminal hideouts and being chased and tracked. Neither would need to have more or less intrigue/politics/roleplay than the other either.
There's also more sandboxy homebrew campaigns (which I love the most but haven't done in a while), where the DM isn't really writing more than a session ahead outside of broad plotlines. Generally you start with a setting, and give the players a reason to be together, then feed them plot hooks until they bite and you roll with it.
First of all, APs notoriously feature long adventuring days. Playing an Alchemist in an AP is in my opinion a tough call. At that stage, you're already trying to put a square peg into a round hole so your GM should help you determining if an Alchemist is a good fit or not for the AP.
The best environments for an Alchemist:
- PFS. Definitely perfect. Adventuring days are rather short (even if you can have 5/6-encounter adventuring days sometimes, but at least never 10-encounter ones), the concept asks for a lot of versatility as you don't always know who will be your fellow teammates.
- Westmarches campaigns. Very similar to PFS as you switch party very often. Still, they can have multiple sessions adventures so you may sometimes end up with rather long adventuring days.
- Standalone adventures. The main asset of these adventures being that the level spread is extremely small so you can choose to play your Alchemist when it is at its strongest. Considering the extreme variation of power across levels of the Alchemist, it's a massive asset.
- Homebrew campaigns. There's a lot of different homebrew, so it's hard to find a general trend. But as you state it, PCs have much more choice into what kind of adventures they want to live. Unless the whole party is super combat-focused, chances are great you could find adventures that fit an Alchemist.
The worst environments:
- APs. Definitely check with your GM what the AP is about. APs are a lot about combat and you can end up with 10-encounter dungeons at the beginning of an AP which is supposed to be about a travelling circus.
- Mega dungeons. Well, quite obviously, if your GM wants to play an adventure which is all about combat then don't play an Alchemist.
Alchemists are designed to use Bombs as their strikes.
Not all Alchemists are Bombers. Mutagenists and Toxicologists don't use Bombs, and many Chirurgeon builds are either weapon or spell-based.
So the Bomb-using Alchemist is far from the rule.Even if, obviously, being short on reagents/alchemical items is bad, whatever the type of Alchemist you are playing.
The Perpetual Bombs are honestly a trap
Before Treasure Vault, yes, kind of (not entirely a trap, but a subpar choice). But since the Skunk Bomb, Perpetual Bombs are strong. Not a trap anymore.
Before Treasure Vault, yes, kind of (not entirely a trap, but a subpar choice). But since the Skunk Bomb, Perpetual Bombs are strong. Not a trap anymore.
This was a good thing to contest and point out, thank you.
Skunk Bombs do break the previous norms in ways that makes them appealing to non-bombers. Enough so that the Breadth Feat is competitive.
A two-action "cantrip" that's a ranged attack w/ good chance to sicken the primary, and poor-decent chance to sicken a splashed target, is a great thing to have.
On the damage:debuff equation, their design is even farther into debuff side, and said debuff does not scale with the bomb tier at all.
Moreover, Skunks are not the usual on-hit, and instead invoke a Fort save. As one of the few perks to needing to spend an Action on quick alch is the item's DC scales to the character's, that makes Skunks kind of poor for prep bombs, but better for spontaneous ones.
While great as 2-action debuff attempt, Skunks are no substitute for a Runed up shortbow, ect.
You can apply Sickened just once, and that debuff does not stack w/ things like Fear.
.
Not all Alchemists are Bombers. Mutagenists and Toxicologists don't use Bombs, and many Chirurgeon builds are either weapon or spell-based.
Yes, I phrased that poorly, just shows how much the Bomber is presumed to be the class itself.
Alchemists are designed to fuel their combat actions with their Reagents, all types. The 2:1 regent prep, and Quick Bomber, still "noob trap" all types into using bombs for damage, so much so I think it needs saying.
My advice to having fun as an Alchemist is to make certain you are never dependent upon using Alchemy for combat purposes, whether that's bombs, mutagens, or elixirs.
While Mutagenist is often called the "best" for this, as the claws are closest the class has to an *alternative* to bombs, that depends on party buy-in. For every party member willing to use a mutagen, that's the # of vials gone each fight, usually even for weaklings. If the Mutagenist is only buffing themself, then they can last a loooong time, yes.
IMO, the Chiurgeon is the type most suited to long days. The absence of a damaging feature better implies the character should seek to fill that gap outside the Alchemist class, and Battle Medicine, the first thing you'll use in a fight, does not consume Reagents.
What I should have said is that every Alchemist needs a good **damage** fallback. One that's not mentioned nor accessed anywhere within the Class itself.
Hence, polarization of opinion. Alchemist is easily terrible for those that don't figure that out, and "Alchemist is fine" for people who essentially use their Class as a spice, and build around something else as the combat core.
.
In summary: Skunks are a great pick for the Breadth Feat, but,
My advice is to prioritize an actual infinite means of good dmg first, such as the previously mentioned Archer Dedication, once done you can grab the inf Skuns for some lovely debuffing.
Yes, I phrased that poorly, just shows how much the Bomber is presumed to be the class itself.
Alchemists are designed to fuel their combat actions with their Reagents, all types. The 2:1 regent prep, and Quick Bomber, still "noob trap" all types into using bombs for damage, so much so I think it needs saying.
My advice to having fun as an Alchemist is to make certain you are never dependent upon using Alchemy for combat purposes, whether that's bombs, mutagens, or elixirs.
While Mutagenist is often called the "best" for this, as the claws are closest the class has to an *alternative* to bombs, that depends on party buy-in. For every party member willing to use a mutagen, that's the # of vials gone each fight, usually even for weaklings. If the Mutagenist is only buffing themself, then they can last a loooong time, yes.
IMO, the Chiurgeon is the type most suited to long days. The absence of a damaging feature better implies the character should seek to fill that gap outside the Alchemist class, and Battle Medicine, the first thing you'll use in a fight, does not consume Reagents.
What I should have said is that every Alchemist needs a good **damage** fallback. One that's not mentioned nor accessed anywhere within the Class itself.
Hence, polarization of opinion. Alchemist is easily terrible for those that don't figure that out, and "Alchemist is fine" for people who essentially use their Class as a spice, and build around something else as the combat core.
.
In summary: Skunks are a great pick for the Breadth Feat, but,
My advice is to prioritize an actual infinite means of good dmg first, such as the previously mentioned Archer Dedication, once done you can grab the inf Skuns for some lovely debuffing.
I disagree with most of what you wrote.
The Bestial Mutagenist is still in a very bad state, but new Mutagens from Treasure Vault allow you to be efficient in combat, either by not dumping your defenses like crazy (Energy Mutagen) or by compensating with Reach to stay away from enemies (Titanic Fury Cocktail).
There's absolutely no need for an at-will ability, it's actually quite the opposite. Trying to rely on an at-will ability with the Alchemist will end up very subpar (outside the Perpetual Skunk Bomb). You need to rely on your Alchemical Items. The question of the length of the adventuring day is important and you should not play an Alchemist in an environment with (quite often) long adventuring days.
Also, you can play an efficient Chirurgeon without Battle Medicine (even if it's a bit stupid as it's nearly free for the Chirurgeon). Elixirs of Life heal well once at level 5+. You just need to address the action economy issue which can be done through various ways (Doctor's Visitation being one, but a mount is also a classical one).
And to that, you can also add a few bought/crafted alchemical items (Mutagens are rather cheap, as are Bombs, and Potions of Healing are common loot) for unexpectedly long adventuring days.
Overall, once at level 5, you should no more need a fallback ability, unless you decided to play an Alchemist in the wrong environment.
Before level 5, on the other hand, fallback abilities are rather nice. And even after, they can help you by reducing your reagents need and as such have more of them available for Quick Alchemy (for example).
And to that, you can also add a few bought/crafted alchemical items (Mutagens are rather cheap, as are Bombs, and Potions of Healing are common loot) for unexpectedly long adventuring days.
Overall, once at level 5, you should no more need a fallback ability, unless you decided to play an Alchemist in the wrong environment.Before level 5, on the other hand, fallback abilities are rather nice. And even after, they can help you by reducing your reagents need and as such have more of them available for Quick Alchemy (for example).
Elixirs of Life are really bad, perhaps the worst in-combat healing option. Touch range, 2-action.
Ocean's Balm, 1-action touch, is free but 10-min CD for the receiver, is 3d8 at L5, avg of 13.5 while the Elixir avg is 16.5 for twice the action cost. And this is RIGHT when the L5 elixir is unlocked. Every level after that, it'll fall farther behind until the next tier at L9.
The issue is that the elixirs are in the "have a cost, but are plentiful" worst of both worlds. They are really, really bad to use in combat. Skinstich Salves to *boost* Battle Medicine can be really good, but I have not used an Elixir of Life in a long time.
It's always better to contribute to the fight, drop enemies sooner, debuff, ect, than it is to heal for less than one swing from one enemy.
Before the L13 Chiurgeon Elixir Feature, any use of the elix o lf in combat should be seen as a failure.
I *strongly* disagree with the claim that you don't need a "fallback ability" post L5.
Everyone needs to be able to help kill things.
A shortbow's ability to always thwip for _d6 + ect damage, for just 1-action, will *always* be highly valuable.
.
I don't know if you have house-ruled that you can use Doctor's Visitation to administer elixirs, but that non-alchemist Feat does not interact with the crappy action economy of elixirs in any way.
Get gloves of storing if you can, but that's one item, and that action save would likely be better spent holding a Skinstitch Salve or Numbing Tonic.
.
It honestly bothers me that you would try to pass off such bad advice to everyone.
RaW, elixirs suck in combat, full stop. You use them when you have to, whether that's a Focus Cathartic to un-stupify a caster, or when a healer is bleeding out, and you've already used Battle Medicine.
No, Alch's are not OK to only use items post L5. That is asking for a bad time. I'm comfortable saying that the single feat investment required to get a good off-script damage tool is something every single alchemist should do. The value comparison w/ the Alchemist Feats is not even an evaluation, it is that horribly lopsided.
Interesting reading, as usual.
SuperBidi and I disagree on a number of things when it comes to Alchemists. But I'll agree with them on one thing here: you really don't need a backup weapon anymore once you've hit 5th. Heck, my Mutagenist hasn't needed a backup weapon ever.
Coincidentally enough, my Outlaws of Alkenstar Bomber has hit 5th just recently. I still have my halfling sling-staff up my sleeve (literally) if needed, but I doubt I will. My guy Garrett now has 9 Batches a day. I use 2 for Quicksilver (4 doses) and 5 for Moderate Bombs (usually 4 Acid Flasks and 11 Bottled Lightning these days.) 1 Batch for 2 Lesser Elixirs of Life (our party is a little light on in-combat healing) and one Batch for a Quick Alchemy alchemical rabbit later in the day.(Man, it's been really nice to get to the point where I can Quick Alchemy, even if only once a day.)
Basically, I'm planning for four encounters a day. And it works. Now, I could rejig for more encounters if needed. 6 Quicksilvers and 18 Bombs would likely do the trick. I'm grateful that our day isn't more intense though.
The real trick of it is, unless under very specific circumstances, you focus on a single Bomb Strike a round, and use your other two Actions for other purposes. Until this level (when Garrett picked up Quick Bomber) the other two Actions were usually Interact (Draw) and Stride (sometimes Step.) Currently Stride-Strike-Stride is working really well.
For me, the price of a short bow is simply too high. I'd have to give up Revivifying Mutagen (L2) or Calculated Splash (L4). Neither trade is worth it to me. Besides, I find taking a 2nd Strike with a full MAP weapon and exercise in frustration most of the time. I'll leave that until 9th when I can toss a 2nd perpetual infusions Bomb if I don't need to move that round.
The first rule is to have fun. If you know what you're doing, and having fun doing it, not much to say but keep on keeping on.
In my short time w/ pf2e have heard far too many people give up on the class, and my advice is directed at people lacking experience playing Alchemist.
I don't think most players are prepared to ration their Strikes so harshly, especially when we try to think about the actual average player, not the sort that posts forums like this.
Last session, I found out that one of my party members had unlocked an attack of opportunity, two levels ago. No joke, the session we hit L8, they just spontaneously remembered they had the ability since L6, and finally started using it. I honestly don't think they are "below" average, and I think they have more ttrpg experience than I do.
It's just that "mistakes" like that happen all the time, and while the game system can do a pretty good job of rolling with it, I'd say it's pretty easy to see how an Alchemist specifically can have a bad time in ways other classes do not.
my advice is directed at people lacking experience playing Alchemist.
[snip]
we try to think about the actual average player, not the sort that posts forums like this.So why are you posting "advice directed at people lacking experience" in "forums like this"?
Because a whole lot more will find it via internet searching, either looking for a specific answer or sticking around and lurking. There's really not much pf2e stuff online, it's here or the subreddit. Only a fraction will make an account and post, which I guess I'm an example of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, a lot of wrong things.
First of all, you can use 2 Elixirs of Life with 3 actions with a Valet Familiar (a must have for a Chirurgeon). Add an action economy enhancer, typically a mount, or a high reach with Choker-Arm Mutagen (or even both) and you should be able to reliably heal nearly as much as a 2-action Heal. It's very far from the worst combat healing option but once again it asks for a lot of system mastery to manage to pull it out.As for Doctor's Visitation, you can use it as an action economy enhancer: Doctor's Visitation + Valet + Elixir of Life heals fine, and you have another Elixir of Life at hand if needed to do the same thing next round for one less action.
Then there's absolutely no need for a bow. If you have high Dexterity, just grab Bombs. There's a full class support for them, unlike the bow which just sucks in the hands of an Alchemist.
Also, getting a main damaging ability is not what I call a "fallback ability". A fallback ability is not part of your main routine.
we try to think about the actual average player, not the sort that posts forums like this.
The best advice you can give to the average player is "Don't play an Alchemist". The class asks for a truckload of system mastery if you want to perform ok, something that the average player is unable to pull out.
snip
The last thing I want people to do is choose another class without even trying. TBH, it's super elitist to say that that, and there seems to be very little to predict how well people optimize/think tactically in ttrpg like this. That "oops, forgot I had AoO" player could wipe the floor with me in any number of fighting games, and does have insightful discussions into their particular metas. I don't think anyone should be given the impression of a class being "difficult/hard/ require ___" to play, as it's always a learn as you go experience.
-----------------------------------------
The problem with your suggestions for using Elx o Lf is that they all have significant opportunity cost, and for every optimization you make for those item draws, whether that's another generic alch item like a Numbing Tonic, or a wand, **you could be drawing any other item.**
While I stand by Elixirs of Life being obviously pretty bad, it is not helpful to leave it there, and I'd like to contribute to the good advice you've already offered.
IMO, you seem to be focusing a bit too much on spending a whole turn futzing with the elixirs, which means no attack. Alchemist thrives on having a great 1-Action Quick Bomber to always try to squeeze in an attack action to make the most of the MAP rules. Any turn you don't make 1 attack action is a big deal (and why I keep preaching the 0-reload bow, maybe you don't want to commit a bomb, but if you've got 0 MAP minus, you def want to pop a shot.)
With 0 other investment, my first suggestion is that people (anyone playing alongside an Alch, too) really try to use those orphan 3rd actions to Draw. How likely is it that you're going to get that Demoralize, or Bon Mot? I still catch myself doing going for those kinds of 3rd actions every now and then, when it would be a much better idea to Draw something in preparation for next turn.
This is why I do not recommend Valet + Dex for a familiar, and offer Dex + Independent as an alternative.
With that setup, each turn the familiar can spend 1 action to either Draw, or hand off an item. This means that you can get a 1-Action Activate every other turn. With 0 Alchemist actions or investment, no need to command Valet, ect.
For a Chiurgeon that can get 3:1 Elix o Lf per Reagent, the familiar alone can make their use worthwhile. As long as you don't try to force big burst healing, you can get some crazy efficiency btwn 1-Action ranged Strikes and using items.
With the same but as before: don't limit yourself to those specific elixirs, they a generic, reactive option when something specific would likely be better.
------------------------------
I still find it rather disingenuous that you claim the bow just sucks for an Alch, then list off all the significant investments needed to make elixir spam at all functional. Again, a single General or Dedication Feat gives bow access, and if you go Archer you can get Assisting Shot (which also works with your bomb throws!)
Injury poisons have been around for quite some time, which have **0 action** cost to force a save or suck effect (but are hell on your daily Reagents). The Alchemist also offers enough variety of consumable ammunition to be worth considering. It's frustrating how stingy the game is w/ formulas, but elemental, bane, ooze are all there to be used. They don't even need the investment of a Feat like the familiar does (though to be clear the familiar is excellent).
While I'm a little leery to recommend it to a newbie due to the learning curve, the Alchemical Crossbow is now a serious contender.
There's no action tax to juice the bomb, only to load it. Combined with the free-Regrip-on-Reload rule, it takes more planning, but is another blatant example to say yes, the Alchemist is clearly designed to consider using arrows/bolts alongside bombs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last thing I want people to do is choose another class without even trying. TBH, it's super elitist to say that that, and there seems to be very little to predict how well people optimize/think tactically in ttrpg like this. That "oops, forgot I had AoO" player could wipe the floor with me in any number of fighting games, and does have insightful discussions into their particular metas. I don't think anyone should be given the impression of a class being "difficult/hard/ require ___" to play, as it's always a learn as you go experience.
Why is it elitist? Stating that a class needs system mastery is factual. Some players are a lot into tactics/builds and others are not, it's also factual. You're not a worse player if you don't know how to optimize a Fighter to undisclosed levels. PF2 is not just about tactics and you can have a lot of fun even with low system mastery.
Also, and obviously, if one of my players really wants to play an Alchemist I'll help them to the best of my abilities. But I've seen far enough people having unsatisfactory experience with the Alchemist to say that the class is not for everyone.
he problem with your suggestions for using Elx o Lf is that they all have significant opportunity cost, and for every optimization you make for those item draws, whether that's another generic alch item like a Numbing Tonic, or a wand, **you could be drawing any other item.**
Yeah, but you want to draw an Elixir of Life, so it's rather moot.
Also, thanks for explaining me how to play an Alchemist. Yes, you have the choice between Valet, which is more costly but allows you to heal more, and Independent + Manual Dexterity, which is free but doesn't heal much. As we were speaking of a Chirurgeon I was going for the maximized healing route but both builds work.
I still find it rather disingenuous that you claim the bow just sucks for an Alch, then list off all the significant investments needed to make elixir spam at all functional.
Maybe is it because Chirurgeons are about healing items. As of now, the only way to make them viable is to jump through a lot of hoops, hence my advice.
If you want to play a character with a bow, just play a Fighter and grab Alchemist Dedication. The Alchemist sucks with a bow. Bombs do more damage than arrow + poison and they are much more thematics than bows. Can you tell me why are you even insisting on using bows? It's a fallback ability at best and there's absolutely no need of such (but I'm fine if you like to have one, to each their own, it's just not mandatory for an Alchemist to thrive).While I'm a little leery to recommend it to a newbie due to the learning curve, the Alchemical Crossbow is now a serious contender.
The Alchemical Crossbow is a 2-handed weapon, so now you cannot heal anymore. The Alchemical Crossbow is a weapon for Crossbow users (Ranger or Gunslinger). The Alchemist doesn't get much out of it, especially once Striking Runes become a thing. Use Bombs if you want a ranged weapon, the class provides full support for them.
The last thing I want people to do is choose another class without even trying. TBH, it's super elitist to say that that, and there seems to be very little to predict how well people optimize/think tactically in ttrpg like this. That "oops, forgot I had AoO" player could wipe the floor with me in any number of fighting games, and does have insightful discussions into their particular metas. I don't think anyone should be given the impression of a class being "difficult/hard/ require ___" to play, as it's always a learn as you go experience.Why is it elitist? Stating that a class needs system mastery is factual. Some players are a lot into tactics/builds and others are not, it's also factual. You're not a worse player if you don't know how to optimize a Fighter to undisclosed levels. PF2 is not just about tactics and you can have a lot of fun even with low system mastery.
Also, and obviously, if one of my players really wants to play an Alchemist I'll help them to the best of my abilities. But I've seen far enough people having unsatisfactory experience with the Alchemist to say that the class is not for everyone.
Agreed. Some classes ARE harder to play than others. That's just a fact. And not everyone will have a good time with that.
Why is it elitist? Stating that a class needs system mastery is factual.
Because just about all players are capable of learning the class as they go, even when new to pf2e.
Declaring that only ____ players should attempt it is to say some players are in a class above most others. An "elite" subset. Hence, elitism.
Yeah, but you want to draw an Elixir of Life, so it's rather moot.
This is exactly the kind of flowchart thinking that should be avoided. No the goal is not drawing an Elx o Lf, the goal must be "how can I best help this turn?"
If someone doesn't engage with that open question, it certainly becomes much more difficult to think creatively and find variety.
Also, thanks for explaining me how to play an Alchemist. Yes, you have the choice between Valet, which is more costly but allows you to heal more, and Independent + Manual Dexterity, which is free but doesn't heal much. As we were speaking of a Chirurgeon I was going for the maximized healing route but both builds work.
If you are doing a double-valet every turn, then yes, it is more action-efficient.
If you are doing a double-valet every 2nd turn, they are the same actions saved.Any less often, and Independent pulls ahead. As you need to plant your feet and commit 3-actions, I have a hard time considering the double-feed to be that normal of a turn.
Additionally, there's other ways to heal/help besides activating elixirs. Battle Medicine, First Aid for bleeding, ect do not benefit from Valet, only a double-handoff of items does.
Moreover, you ignored the point about trying to make an attack every turn. And if you are seriously double-feeding elixirs on the regular, even a Chiurgeon will run out really quick.
----------------------------------------
The Alchemical Crossbow is a 2-handed weapon, so now you cannot heal anymore.
I'm going to assume that you're not trolling, but that's not super easy to believe. I suppose it takes "system mastery" to understand, but that statement is just flat out wrong.
As I mentioned, Reload weapons get the option to regrip for free without action loss whenever you Reload.
This means an Alch can shoot --> drop a hand, and be free to do whatever they want until the Reload.
If one can plan across turns, and keeps some bombs ready for the 1-Action Quick Bomber, there is no reason to ever loose an action to Regrip.
That Alch can accept the Independent handoff, use it, then Reload + Shoot the bomb-boosted bolt in one turn.
If the turn's budget is more strict, then leave the Xbow unloaded, and swap for a Use + Stride + Quick Bomber to ensure you're always attacking.
----------------------------------------------
Can you tell me why are you even insisting on using bows?
I refused to take the Feat tax of Far Lobber, and even in Abm Vlts, I'm often farther than the 20ft increment. That alone already makes the -2 to hit, 2d6 + effect of most bombs a conscious choice VS the 2d6 bow.
Not exhaustively, other things that have me shooting a bow instead of throwing a bomb: downed players in the splash zone, debuffs that will not stack/already are there, low Fort save--> shoot Sloughing Toxin, battle is won & doing cleanup, that specific enemy is so low health it's a waste, ect.