Yet Another Please Fix Alchemist Post

[Squiggit]

Trip.H wrote:

It is very, very common in game design and ttrpg design to consider versatility, especially spontaneous versatility, to be very powerful and dangerous/difficult to balance.

Okay, but we know that in its current state the alchemist has a handful of key issues, even with that versatility.

So again I'm not sure why you're talking about removing key features from the class.

Instead we could just try to get some of the problem parts fixed, because that's what the alchemist actually needs.

[SuperBidi]

I feel that the Alchemist shouldn't be the best Bomber, Mutagenist or Poisoner. It should be a Fighter/Ranger/Whatever with Alchemist Dedication.

The PF2 Alchemist is a support class in its core. Allowing specialized builds on top of the classical versatile support build seems like an impossible conundrum to solve. And I really think it'd be far easier and much more interesting to give at level Poisons, Bombs or Mutagens through the Dedication so it opens up proper alchemy-based martials while keeping the current Alchemist (with a refactor through the remaster, just similar role and abilities).

But it's certainly too late anyway.

[Trip.H]

SuperBidi wrote:

I feel that the Alchemist shouldn't be the best Bomber, Mutagenist or Poisoner. It should be a Fighter/Ranger/Whatever with Alchemist Dedication.

The PF2 Alchemist is a support class in its core. Allowing specialized builds on top of the classical versatile support build seems like an impossible conundrum to solve. And I really think it'd be far easier and much more interesting to give at level Poisons, Bombs or Mutagens through the Dedication so it opens up proper alchemy-based martials while keeping the current Alchemist (with a refactor through the remaster, just similar role and abilities).

But it's certainly too late anyway.

I disagree with idea that Alchemist shouldn't be its own class, and think there is plenty of avenues to make it work. At the foundation, Alchemist items are just lesser spells, there's no inherent reason a class that focuses on them cannot work.

However, you do highlight the core problem.

Any class can take Alchemical Crafting, and even without buying them from shops, they can get access to on-level poisons, bombs, ect.
Without the freebies from being an Alch, it's going to be expensive and infrequent, but every other martial can use those items better than the Alch can.

Not only because Quick Draw is better than Quick Bomber, but that's what the -Accuracy issue (and all the bad Feats) really does to an Alch.

------------------------

It's like if every class could use spell scrolls without any training, and without the extra action cost of Trick Magic Item.

Also, spell scrolls require castings of said spell, meaning there's no way to get access to new options.

Meaning, the ONLY way to make Alch work is to give them Feat/Features that directly improve their efficacy at USING Alchemical items, not just at creating them.

Additives even when made via Advanced Alchemy, action savers, scaling DC for every Infused item, ect.

Even if the accuracy penalty stays (and there's real arguments for such a limiter), those kinds of tweaks should be seen as the bare minimum, IMO.

[aobst128]

Bombers should be the best bombers and the other subclasses aught to be on that same page as well. That's generally how it is already aside from accuracy issues.

[Trip.H]

aobst128 wrote:

Bombers should be the best bombers and the other subclasses aught to be on that same page as well. That's generally how it is already aside from accuracy issues.

The issue (alright, one of many issues) is that's not really true.

Because of Quick Draw, and Quick Alchemy.

Qkw Alch uses 1 action. This is the only way to get a single Additive trait mixed into the bomb. Aside from that, there's only a few Alch Feats that just improve bomb throws outright, like "splash dmg Y is now Int " --> "splash dmg is now Y plus Int" and these flat improvements are competing against other's Strike enhancers.

-------------

Any non-Alchemist with Quick Draw can throw store-bought bombs for 1 action.

Right off the bat, a Bomber must enhance their bombs via Feats enough to compete with a higher accuracy character that can also throw bombs w/ 1 action.

Even if you give allowances and say the Qwk Alch bombs get more value due to less MAP, it takes a long time and many Feats to get anywhere close to being worth that 2x action cost.

Moreover, bomb throws are still (-accuracy) Strikes, and other classes have many, many ways to enhance their Strikes.

-----------------

While I will say that Bombers do generally get the best Splash, as that is difficult for other classes to enhance (it's just too specific). However, it's not even impossible.

Anything that imposes/enhances weaknesses or type damage onto an enemy will improve splash damage.

While such mechanics are usually put into casters and not martials (Thaum) even that small specialization never gets that strong for Bombers. Everything is comparative, and it takes Bombers far too much to even do the decent Splash that is ostensibly what the sub-class was made for.

More importantly, that one hell of a tiny niche that will not have many, if any, chances to shine.

-------------------

By far the biggest "crime" of how poorly the Bomber compares to a non-Alch is that all the special effects of the bombs are in the item, so a Fighter can chuck a crit Necrotic Bomb and get Sickened 3 even easier than the Alchemist.

Meanwhile, the Bomber will always have to spend an Action on Quick Alchemy just to add 1 Additive effect.

This often takes stacked Feats, as True Debilitating is the 3rd in it's line, and it is still a class DC Fort save. It's a good Feat. But.

The Additive Trait means only one at a time. Either a Bomber knows to pick a single enhancement line like the Debilitating, or they carry dead Feats that don't do anything most of the time. (Debilitating has debuff options to select between on creation, pick that one for it's flexibility)

The final insult is the Bomber's capstone Feat of Mega Bomb, an Additive. Meaning, if you ever hit LvL 20, you're struck w/ the realization that maybe you should retrain all those others into another class. Or maybe not, because;

Mega Bomb is not compatible with Quick Bomber, nor does it include the actual throw in it's action cost.

"If your next action after creating a mega bomb isn’t an Interact action to throw it, the mega bomb denatures and loses all effects."

Gonna have to raw draw those bombs, Mega the bomb, then throw.

A 3-action routine for the L20 Feat, that still has a class DC reflex save.

Even right now, it's a hard sell to claim that bombers are the best Bombers. IMO, might be Gunslingers or Rangers (as a base), depending on what you're looking for.

------------------

Yikes, that got ranty again.

It's issues like that "only one" Additive that really mess with anyone who seriously invests in Alchemist Feats, and why I'm really hoping for more of a redesign than a touch-up.

Right now, the Alchemist is the class that can make any on-Lvl alchemical item. That can be super fun and cool, but IMO in order for a player to have a fun time playing an Alchemist really requires them to lean into the whole item list.

If they don't enjoy feeding items, especially cleansing odd debuffs between combats, I'd recommend steering them away from the class.

Alchemist can definitely result in a good time, but the expectations need to be in the right place. If someone thinks they'll be able to keep up in terms of damage /dps if they just invest in full Bomber, that's a recipe for trouble.

[aobst128]

Depends on the budget. Most campaigns can't sustain a fighter bomber with on level bombs for very long while an alchemist gets a ton without the gold cost. They're the best bombers since they're simply able to keep it up for far longer than anyone else. Not that that aught be the metric but still. Sticky bombs are still a big deal for bomb dpr as well.

[Trip.H]

aobst128 wrote:

Depends on the budget. Most campaigns can't sustain a fighter bomber with on level bombs for very long while an alchemist gets a ton without the gold cost. They're the best bombers since they're simply able to keep it up for far longer than anyone else. Not that that aught be the metric but still. Sticky bombs are still a big deal for bomb dpr as well.

Well, Gunslinger is there if someone thinks the Dedication + 2 Feat dip is worth getting Lvl-3 bombs for free each day.

Because that'll get you higher L bombs than taking an Alchemist Dedication would, lol. And Quick Draw.

[aobst128]

Trip.H wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Depends on the budget. Most campaigns can't sustain a fighter bomber with on level bombs for very long while an alchemist gets a ton without the gold cost. They're the best bombers since they're simply able to keep it up for far longer than anyone else. Not that that aught be the metric but still. Sticky bombs are still a big deal for bomb dpr as well.

Well, Gunslinger is there if someone thinks the Dedication + 2 Feat dip is worth getting Lvl-3 bombs for free each day.

Because that'll get you higher L bombs than taking an Alchemist Dedication would, lol. And Quick Draw.

You need the second feat, munitions machinist to get scaling bombs and ammunition which for the archetype, you need to wait till 12th level to pick up. Best to go with demolition expert and commit bombs to a consumable tool to use along side your main weapon. I do wish demolition expert gave reagents though.

This does make gunslinger itself a reasonably efficient non alch bomber. But most of the time, you're still using your gun with alchemical shot.

[AnimatedPaper]

SuperBidi wrote:

I feel that the Alchemist shouldn't be the best Bomber, Mutagenist or Poisoner. It should be a Fighter/Ranger/Whatever with Alchemist Dedication.

The PF2 Alchemist is a support class in its core. Allowing specialized builds on top of the classical versatile support build seems like an impossible conundrum to solve. And I really think it'd be far easier and much more interesting to give at level Poisons, Bombs or Mutagens through the Dedication so it opens up proper alchemy-based martials while keeping the current Alchemist (with a refactor through the remaster, just similar role and abilities).

But it's certainly too late anyway.

I've mentioned this before, but I feel like the alchemist would have really benefited from being 2, maybe 3 classes instead of 1. One class on the caster chassis that's a vending machine, and gets progressively more efficient at handing out their items to the rest of the party. You could probably leave the bomber feat line on it. Basically, a lot like the class is now, but trading out its warpriest/frontline caster proficiencies in favor of lots of free items and low to no action costs to give them to someone else.

The second class would be a martial that gets a lot fewer free items, but is really great at using them. Like fewer penalties for mutagens, more damage and secondary effects for bombs, virulent and rapidly replenishing poison, and so on. Healing...maybe any overheal from their own potions they get as temporary hit points? Also, rather than being good at giving them to another character, this class would have very low action cost to use their own product.

[Red Griffyn]

As soon as remaster was announced a litany of these fix the alchemist posts came out (some as standalone threads or some as what do you want to see from the remaster general threads). Personally I suggested the list below many times and defended it to death. At this point Paizo either listened or they didn't. They didn't show many indicators that they were willing to listen to folks in the wave of the remaster announcement but I'd love to be proven wrong and I think many of us held out increased hopes that more could be done for Core 2 classes as Core 1 were basically 'out the door'.

Given that they went too light handed on improving the warpriest in the remaster and they have 'fixed' the alchemist 2-3 times already with erratas or books of items (yet still failed to hit the mark) I wouldn't hold out high hopes for the drastic changes needed to make the class what many people want.

There is a fundamental reality vs. class fantasy issue. Lots of people like the pill dispenser support build, but many people just want a bombing martial with some extra item versatility and enough bombs to bomb all day. It is my best guess that the alchemist gets brought up so frequently because a much larger number of people want the bomber than these forums or Paizo realized or car to admit. Paizo has continued to reinforce the support pill dispenser builds but not the bomber, so it sparks a ton of controversy from two counter opposite camps who's class fantasy's don't align well.

Two biggest issues with achieving the result folks want is that too much class power budget are stuck in the items that 'other classes' can access and the proficiency/item bonus scaling is janky and too different from other baseline martials/casters to be effective. If alchemical items were weaker that would allow the alchemist chassis to be better and align bomber type play style expectations. It also frees up the 'weaker' alchemical items to be more freely given to other classes who want that 'bomber flavour'. The way it is now the base class chassis is weak and other classes will almost always be better at using the alchemical items the alchemist makes up than the alchemist (i.e., pill dispenser vs. self actualized stand alone build).

Alchemist Fixes
- Key Ability Score (KAS) selection of STR, DEX, or INT
- Expert/Master Proficiency in Unarmed Strikes, Simple Weapons, and Bombs at L5 and L13.
- Gloves that transfer weapon property runes to bombs. Essentially add the runes to pre-made bombs and quick alchemy bombs
- Increase low level infusion count to give more resources at early levels or provide the perpetual infusions at L1.
- Weaken bombs/alchemical items overall to justify these buffs to the class
- Give auto scaling E/M/L in craft as a class feature at L2/7/15.
- Improve MC to just give and advanced alchemy level of level-4 like the gunslinger as a L6 feat. The current scaling doesn't make a ton of sense.
- Re-balance on mutagens. The downsides for most of them are just super awful compared to the limited benefits you're getting (looking at you mandatory quiksilver mutagen for bombers that drops effective HD to 1D6 and forces you into 20ft radius to go be roflstomped). mutagens in general should be comparable to a level -1 or -2 spell and with no downsides. You don't see someone casting heroism on someone get 2hp/level less or a -2 to fort saves. If the alchemical items were more or less treated like weak spells or consumable weapons I think the balance would be far better.

Suggested downgrades to pay for other things:
- Item bonuses should only be +1/+2/+3 and not go to +4. They should align with other martial runes (this is specific to things like the quick silver mutagen).
- Persistent damage reduction or die decrease as needed.
- This probably won't be popular but if the bomb of 'x' was just another weapon with a base damage dice and clear instructions on what gets striking applied then you can avoid the janky item levels we see now where L11 bombs are +2 greater striking (one level after +2 runes, but 1 level before greater striking runes). This could make things like the thrower's bandolier or a pair of bomber gloves so you can apply it to quick alchemy items just simply work because its essentially a 1D8 'fire knife' that you're throwing.
- Slight weakening of the skunk bomb from TV
-Likely a re-balance of sticky bombs and Bomb Coagulant Alembics.

[WWHsmackdown]

Red Griffyn wrote:

As soon as remaster was announced a litany of these fix the alchemist posts came out (some as standalone threads or some as what do you want to see from the remaster general threads). Personally I suggested the list below many times and defended it to death. At this point Paizo either listened or they didn't. They didn't show many indicators that they were willing to listen to folks in the wave of the remaster announcement but I'd love to be proven wrong and I think many of us held out increased hopes that more could be done for Core 2 classes as Core 1 were basically 'out the door'.

Given that they went too light handed on improving the warpriest in the remaster and they have 'fixed' the alchemist 2-3 times already with erratas or books of items (yet still failed to hit the mark) I wouldn't hold out high hopes for the drastic changes needed to make the class what many people want.

There is a fundamental reality vs. class fantasy issue. Lots of people like the pill dispenser support build, but many people just want a bombing martial with some extra item versatility and enough bombs to bomb all day. It is my best guess that the alchemist gets brought up so frequently because a much larger number of people want the bomber than these forums or Paizo realized or car to admit. Paizo has continued to reinforce the support pill dispenser builds but not the bomber, so it sparks a ton of controversy from two counter opposite camps who's class fantasy's don't align well.

Two biggest issues with achieving the result folks want is that too much class power budget are stuck in the items that 'other classes' can access and the proficiency/item bonus scaling is janky and too different from other baseline martials/casters to be effective. If alchemical items were weaker that would allow the alchemist chassis to be better and align bomber type play style expectations. It also frees up the 'weaker' alchemical items to be more freely given to other classes who want that 'bomber flavour'. The way it is now the...

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

[QuidEst]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

Some folks were of the "wave caster or bust" mindset. Warpriest is still a full caster that has levels with lower accuracy than martial classes. As good as the buffs are, anyone who mainly wanted that to not be the case is out of luck.

[Captain Morgan]

I will say the Divine list looks a little anemic when you look at it in this book alone, at least at certain spell ranks. It will be easier to assess once it goes up on Archive of Nethys and is merged with the pre-player core content like Secrets of Magic and Rage of the Elements.

[3-Body Problem]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

They didn't get fixed in the ways that would support how people want to play them. I think players want a wave-casting Champion and anything less is going to be seen as a failure.

[QuidEst]

3-Body Problem wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

They didn't get fixed in the ways that would support how people want to play them. I think players want a wave-casting Champion and anything less is going to be seen as a failure.

(How some people want to play, some players want a wave-casting Champion, and anything less is going to be seen as a failure by some. A lot of folks are pretty happy with the changes that were made. Sorry if that's what you meant by your post already, though.)

[3-Body Problem]

QuidEst wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

They didn't get fixed in the ways that would support how people want to play them. I think players want a wave-casting Champion and anything less is going to be seen as a failure.

(How some people want to play, some players want a wave-casting Champion, and anything less is going to be seen as a failure by some. A lot of folks are pretty happy with the changes that were made. Sorry if that's what you meant by your post already, though.)

Pretty much. However, I don't think the changes that did get made are the kind that would move the needle for people who didn't already lean positive on Warpriest. The changes are mostly QoL rather than a shift in playstyle.

[AestheticDialectic]

3-Body Problem wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

They didn't get fixed in the ways that would support how people want to play them. I think players want a wave-casting Champion and anything less is going to be seen as a failure.

I personally don't. Focus spells represent 1/2 casting where it appears wave casting represents 3/4 casting. Champion also would likely lose legendary armor proficiency with a change like this. I think it's more appropriate for whatever replaces the Inquisitor to get wave casting and be more offensive in comparison to the champion's defensive playstyle

[3-Body Problem]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

They didn't get fixed in the ways that would support how people want to play them. I think players want a wave-casting Champion and anything less is going to be seen as a failure.

I personally don't. Focus spells represent 1/2 casting where it appears wave casting represents 3/4 casting. Champion also would likely lose legendary armor proficiency with a change like this. I think it's more appropriate for whatever replaces the Inquisitor to get wave casting and be more offensive in comparison to the champion's defensive playstyle

We have an offense-focused wave-caster in the Magus. I'd be interested to see what can be done with a defense-focused version.

[AestheticDialectic]

3-Body Problem wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

I personally don't. Focus spells represent 1/2 casting where it appears wave casting represents 3/4 casting. Champion also would likely lose legendary armor proficiency with a change like this. I think it's more appropriate for whatever replaces the Inquisitor to get wave casting and be more offensive in comparison to the champion's defensive playstyle

We have an offense-focused wave-caster in the Magus. I'd be interested to see what can be done with a defense-focused version.

Inquisitor would have judgements instead of spellstrikes, some are slightly defensive, but a defensive wavecaster, well sparkling targe magus is already most of the way there

[greaterfiend00]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

I feel that the Alchemist shouldn't be the best Bomber, Mutagenist or Poisoner. It should be a Fighter/Ranger/Whatever with Alchemist Dedication.

The PF2 Alchemist is a support class in its core. Allowing specialized builds on top of the classical versatile support build seems like an impossible conundrum to solve. And I really think it'd be far easier and much more interesting to give at level Poisons, Bombs or Mutagens through the Dedication so it opens up proper alchemy-based martials while keeping the current Alchemist (with a refactor through the remaster, just similar role and abilities).

But it's certainly too late anyway.

I've mentioned this before, but I feel like the alchemist would have really benefited from being 2, maybe 3 classes instead of 1. One class on the caster chassis that's a vending machine, and gets progressively more efficient at handing out their items to the rest of the party. You could probably leave the bomber feat line on it. Basically, a lot like the class is now, but trading out its warpriest/frontline caster proficiencies in favor of lots of free items and low to no action costs to give them to someone else.

The second class would be a martial that gets a lot fewer free items, but is really great at using them. Like fewer penalties for mutagens, more damage and secondary effects for bombs, virulent and rapidly replenishing poison, and so on. Healing...maybe any overheal from their own potions they get as temporary hit points? Also, rather than being good at giving them to another character, this class would have very low action cost to use their own product.

Yep why I really feel class archetypes to move in the support or self sufficient roles would make a lotta sense though I still feel the research fields should reflect that more as well given 3 of the current 4 have martial implications with a horrid base to realize it. With Bombers the only slightly feasible one as they can weakness hunt even on misses. The mutagenist and Toxicologists just being poor at actually doing anything with their own cocktail of choice and as you said more encouraged to just give their life's work to their buddies. The latter two need a compelling reason to wade into battle. Mutagenists used to have some of the highest raw stats short of barbarians/bloodrager and decent armor from natural armor to boot when consuming mutagens that served to keep them on par with other martials but they have fallen well low of that mark in 2e.

[greaterfiend00]

At this point unless the remaster really wows me I'm probably just going to have to embark on a full redesign myself fleshing out every research field while trying to stay in line with other class balance and if I think I've gotten something going posting for feedback. I'm just tired of the alchemist either being the general store or a bomber which does a great disservice to the many other outlets of alchemy and science revolving around it. I am obviously biased towards the mutagens side of things (Bane is my favorite DC character after all) but I do feel every itch should be scratched and a toolbox laid out for you to make your own choices on what you want to class to build into.

[Staffan Johansson]

Cyder wrote:

For me if Quick Alchemy is what is holding the class back then I wouldn't miss it at all.

I would rather Quick Alchemy be a 10 minute activity or gone entirely if it mean I can be more reliable in other areas. As a 10 minute reprepare some of what you made using advanced alchemy into something else (maybe with a 2 or 3 advanced alchemy being remixed into 1 quick alchemy object) it might balance while still giving that balance out of combat.

Reminds me of the 3e Artificer. One of their cooler spellsinfusions was spell-storing item, which basically let them make a one-shot wand in one minute. Of any spell up to half their level (maxing at level 3 or 4, IIRC). That's some amazing versatility, and that sounds like what I'd like to see from the alchemist.

[The Raven Black]

The Alchemist and the Witch were the 2 classes explicitly identified for an overhaul in Remastered.

Seeing how the Witch ended up, I have great hopes for the Alchemist.

[jasonfahy]

Maybe everyone knows this, but I haven't seen anybody mention it: it seems like all the mutagens are absent from GM Core. They list the alchemical bombs, poisons, tools and all the other elixirs, but no mutagens, and that makes me think/hope they might reappear as an alchemist-only thing...?

If so, they'd be less weighed down by balance worries. Could be good.

[aobst128]

jasonfahy wrote:

Maybe everyone knows this, but I haven't seen anybody mention it: it seems like all the mutagens are absent from GM Core. They list the alchemical bombs, poisons, tools and all the other elixirs, but no mutagens, and that makes me think/hope they might reappear as an alchemist-only thing...?

If so, they'd be less weighed down by balance worries. Could be good.

Very good point. Real excited to see how those turn out now

[Staffan Johansson]

jasonfahy wrote:

Maybe everyone knows this, but I haven't seen anybody mention it: it seems like all the mutagens are absent from GM Core. They list the alchemical bombs, poisons, tools and all the other elixirs, but no mutagens, and that makes me think/hope they might reappear as an alchemist-only thing...?

If so, they'd be less weighed down by balance worries. Could be good.

I would like to see mutagens limited to physical ones, and perhaps only your typical Mister Hyde-style one. And I think that would be better served by using the battle form rules than a bunch of buffs.

[QuidEst]

The Raven Black wrote:

The Alchemist and the Witch were the 2 classes explicitly identified for an overhaul in Remastered.

Seeing how the Witch ended up, I have great hopes for the Alchemist.

Alchemist, Witch, Oracle, and Champion- it was four classes in total. (Champion for different reasons than the other three, though.)

I'm heartened by Witch as well, yeah. Looking forward to seeing what their new take on Alchemist is, and glad it gets some extra time to bake.

[Themetricsystem]

Given that Crafting seems MAJORLY overhauled I think that there is going to be an absolute TON of room that is freed up in the Alchemist Class based on one simple thing:

Common Items no longer require a Formula meaning that the VAST majority of the per-level Alchemist stuff they get as well as their Research Field rules are rendered completely redundant since out of the 660ish Alchemical Items only 240ish of them are NOT of Common Rarity in the place and of those less than half of that (110ish) are even in actual Rulebooks instead of specific Adventures/Modules.

I foresee the Alchemist still retaining the Formula book but it is going to end up being VERY different in that it will be a repository for Uncommon/Rare/Unique Alchemical Item Formulas but it will also contain some NEW type of Class Resource akin to Inventor Innovations Breakthroughs or the Kineticist Gate's Threshold where you learn new ways to tweak/empower your own Infused Alchemical Items that cannot simply be purchased.

I'm also really hopeful that we see the return and revival of Bottled Monsters, Homonculus options, and ideally some of the kind of body-mod type stuff that was present and loved in the PF1 Alchemist. The ideas here are a mixed bag of good, okay, and bad ideas but I've yet to see anyone address this IMMENSE gap that will invariably end up being filled by SOMETHING once PC2 drops by the mere nature of the Crafting rule changes. On top of all that, the Alchemist will also be able to create backup non-infused Alchemical Item stocks during downtime since the time to create them is cut in half (or by 75% if you do have the Formulas for them which I think could be a pretty good tradeoff for Alchemists who wish to invest the money on them so they can ACTUALLY stock up on their own when they have a day or two off and a place they can buy/gather Mats).

[Trip.H]

The crafting changes will certainly save me a whole lot of gp. A bit of which can then be spent on hard Alch items like backup Cat's Eyes or Ghost Charges that (hopefully) never get used.

This is more than just a quality of life change, and will greatly reduce the burden of managing an Alchemist.

That said, this really does need to be paired with giving the Alchemist some way to better USE the items than other classes can. As of now, it's just Quick Bomber (and a Familiar's Manual Dex + Independent is essential). The Alch has nearly 0 exclusive action savers, + bonuses to item effects, ect.

Even with Additives, that's still not an improvement to using the items, it only creates slighter superior ones for a heavy cost.

It's rather bizarre that the class was released in that state to begin with, but IMO giving the Alchemist the ability to better *use* items is more important than the changes to crafting. If that can happen, the class will be okay, IMO.

To be honest, it's not a guarantee, and I'm not even optimistic about getting improvements to Strike accuracy.

------------------

I will say that one plain buff I'm dying to get is just giving all Infused Alch items scaling DC when created.

All the oddball "combat items" that were added in the Treasure Vault are just so sad. I really want to use them, but there is no way to have them "upcast" or scale at all.
Even if the damage was static and fell behind, that would be okay. It's really the easy crit-success of anything that's a level or three behind that just kills all reason to ever make them.

Please, no more 5 versions of the same thing as a form of "scaling". Just make one Sun Dazzler w/ the expectation that the save DC can scale w/ the Alchemist.

Using the Infused trait as a way to make that happen is a no-brainer to cap shenanigans and gives a reason to play a real Alchemist instead of taking Alchemical Crafting.

Because that's the flip side of this crafting change.

No change to how Alchemists make their daily items has happened, it has only become easier for *everyone* to craft things the slow way.

Any class can take 1 Skill Feat and be able to craft EVERYTHING Alchemists can, and do it on-level.
Shorter craft time means more can be spent on finishing for price reduction. It will be easier than ever for non-Alchemists to chuck bombs, chug Energy Mutagens, ect.

Again, how bizarre is it that the Magus next to me could craft Alchemical items at the exact same ability that I can? And there's 0 chance I'm going to spend a class Feat to double my batch output (but not save any gp!) and it's such a joke of an option I've insulted myself for even thinking about it.

[Red Griffyn]

QuidEst wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Too light on fixing the warpriest? That's definitely a take; I feel like clerics (and especially warpriest) made off like Robin Hood level bandits with this remaster

Some folks were of the "wave caster or bust" mindset. Warpriest is still a full caster that has levels with lower accuracy than martial classes. As good as the buffs are, anyone who mainly wanted that to not be the case is out of luck.

The few people here are correct. I'm on record in many places in these forums/reddit advocating for a bounded caster chassis subclass for the cleric, druid, and bard.

I don't advocate for the people who like a caster heavy gish to lose their warpriest. But I won't pretend like it provides a satisfying martial forward gish for my playstyle. Call my thing the inquisitor or zealot or w/e instead of warpriest and give it to us. Here are the main points:

- There are tons of great feats in cleric, bard, and druid that you can only access at reasonable levels if you start in those classes (i.e., MC in those classes only lets you get feats at twice your level so anything L8+ basically come along too late or not at all). Each already had 20+ in class feats to make a gish with little or no added feats required.

- The closer your base chassis enables a DPR competitive 2 action attack sequence martial the more it will mesh well with existing archetypes. Classes like the magus/summoner really struggle with being so action taxed for their main routines/class. Also the martial side of the summoner can't benefit from martial archetypes do you are just left out in the cold for much of the other available published content.

- The more your chassis reinforces a 1 strike per turn rotation the more swingy your play will be. I don't find that very satisfying. I'd rather have 1 of 2 strikes hit than no strikes hit. Its the same reason people might pick a 1D12 weapon vs. a 1D8/1D12 fatal weapon (some people enjoy larger risk reward play, but people like me don't). Typical martials are around 60-70% (average 65%) accurate on their first strike so even a -2 or -1 at various levels just takes you that much farther from the 'feel good in play' zone of 70% that is well known in game design.

- The bounded caster chassis for all of these would play differently (this is a common thing people reply to me). They all have different spell lists, feat lists, and play styles. Cleric is a 'self buffer', bard is a group buffer, and druid is a wildshaping martial with versatility in weapons/forms/form capabilities. Clerics/Bards/Druids all play differently from each other as casters so a bounded class version would be just the same.

- Its been over 2 years since the secrets of magic magus bounded caster chassis was published. Why do we have to wait to the end of the edition product cycle for a 1st party bounded caster of each magic tradition. You could even make a class archetype for any caster to take that modifies the base chassis and has a handful of common feats and it would still be great as long as you get to take the base class feats. I will generally state though that cleric/bard/druid have that in class feat support, but wizard/witch/oracle might suffer more here with that approach.

- 3rd party content already exists for this. Cleric+ has an amazing warpriest on that chassis. I've played it and love it. Exactly what I wanted. They significantly beat paizo to the punch by decoupling CHA from the font and its self evident that paizo took inspiration from their great work (e.g., Paizo has a L8 feat called zealous rush that is basically the exact same feat as Clerics+ zealous dash at L6). Kudos to Derry Luttrell and Tony Saunders for publishing this stuff a year before Paizo. Obviously the issue is that most GMs won't entertain 3rd party content and it isn't legal for PFS, despite this stuff being well balanced.

- In general the further you stray from the baseline martial chassis with your KAS as STR or DEX the worse the experience will be for a good subset of people. The base martial chassis has certain saves/attack/AC proficiency scaling that means you aren't ahead or behind others. That means you don't have multiple levels where you are worse than others or have to engage with spending half your class resources (e.g., casts of heroism or quicksilver mutagens) to get your accuracy back in spec. I'd much rather have less spell slots, but a guaranteed +2 to hit than wasting actions in combat trying regain baseline functionality or running around with mutagen type debuffs. In the same way, having AC that lags is basically a death sentence for being on the frontline (now even more true given the clarification on dying rules) so you're going to be limited in what you can do as a real gish if you don't follow the martial proficiency scaling.

[Easl]

Red Griffyn wrote:

The more your chassis reinforces a 1 strike per turn rotation the more swingy your play will be. I don't find that very satisfying. I'd rather have 1 of 2 strikes hit than no strikes hit.

First, I don't see much wrong with homebrewing a magus that uses the divine list and calling it a 'warpriest' if you really want the wave casting. Your GM may want to monitor whether the "gets all spells" trait of the cleric was OP or okay on a Magus chassis, but that's up to your table. So I'd say if that's what you really want, try it.

But second, a gish does NOT need to have full martial proficiency to be a two-attack-action weapon-wielder. The gish casts, then weapon strikes. The martial weapon strikes, then weapon strikes. The trick is remembering that the secondary strike with the weapon is functionally equivalent in both cases. The martial gets that secondary strike at 4-5 points below the "martial max proficiency" because of MAP. The gish caster gets that secondary strike at 4-5 points below the "martial max proficiency" because of the proficiency difference. but they both have about the same chance to hit with that secondary weapon strike. If you welded a higher weapon proficiency on a full caster chassis, you'd get something that was actually better than a martial at that secondary weapon attack. And that's no good.

The gish requires 3a to do both. But is that too terrible? You have full casting in addition to a weapon strike. And it's pretty comparable to the Magus which you want, because the Magus also uses all three actions to perform two strikes in rounds where they use their spellstrike.

[Red Griffyn]

Easl wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

The more your chassis reinforces a 1 strike per turn rotation the more swingy your play will be. I don't find that very satisfying. I'd rather have 1 of 2 strikes hit than no strikes hit.

First, I don't see much wrong with homebrewing a magus that uses the divine list and calling it a 'warpriest' if you really want the wave casting. Your GM may want to monitor whether the "gets all spells" trait of the cleric was OP or okay on a Magus chassis, but that's up to your table. So I'd say if that's what you really want, try it.

But second, a gish does NOT need to have full martial proficiency to be a two-attack-action weapon-wielder. The gish casts, then weapon strikes. The martial weapon strikes, then weapon strikes. The trick is remembering that the secondary strike with the weapon is functionally equivalent in both cases. The martial gets that secondary strike at 4-5 points below the "martial max proficiency" because of MAP. The gish caster gets that secondary strike at 4-5 points below the "martial max proficiency" because of the proficiency difference. but they both have about the same chance to hit with that secondary weapon strike. If you welded a higher weapon proficiency on a full caster chassis, you'd get something that was actually better than a martial at that secondary weapon attack. And that's no good.

The gish requires 3a to do both. But is that too terrible? You have full casting in addition to a weapon strike. And it's pretty comparable to the Magus which you want, because the Magus also uses all three actions to perform two strikes in rounds where they use their spellstrike.

See my third and second last points. There is already 3rd party content that does it better than Paizos that Paizo took heavy inspiration from in making their changes. I also don't want a divine magus because I don't like the insanely tight combat routine action loops. I also want a bounded caster druid/cleric/bard because they have unique feats that you can't just get as a 'x tradition spell list magus'.

I'm not saying a gish needs to have full martial proficiency. Its a sliding scale between martial to caster. What I'm saying is that if you do have martial proficiency it is IMO a much better experience and chassis for all the reasons stated in my last post.

I strongly disagree with your comparison of spell + strike as strike strike. First a spell is likely 2 actions + strike which means you don't have spare actions for movement, demoralize, bon mot, battle medicine, a 1 action focus spell like lay on hands, etc. If you need to cast a spell to it also means you literally can't dive into so many archetype options for 2 action activities so you just lose so many build options. The whole point is maximal action flexibility, not getting pigeon holed into an action sequence Paizo thinks my gish should have.

Also trying to compare spells to strikes is a bit of a fools errand. One uses martial proficiency against a typical AC. The other uses spell strikes with no item bonuses against enemy AC or saves vs. weak/medium/strong saves (if you can figure it out). There are far too many things to address there to call them equivalent without way more analysis backing up your point.

I don't understand what you're talking about about 2nd strike equivalency. I feel like you didn't read my post at all. I'm not talking about giving martial proficiency to a full caster. I'm talking about using the bounded/wave casting progression. That is balanced as evidenced by the magus/summoner we're all fine with.

[Squiggit]

Easl wrote:

The gish requires 3a to do both. But is that too terrible?

I mean, kind of yeah. It means your entire action economy is subsumed to do the bare minimum to try to fulfill a fantasy. You're basically drowning one of PF2's selling points as a game system.

And even then you're less a battlemage and more a dedicated spellcaster who has nothing better to do with their third action.