Remastered Alchemist

[Themetricsystem]

I personally see no value in retaining drawbacks on Mutagens, especially if the idea that they can be made to MATCH the type and scale of bonuses that they provide to always be on par with Runes and other Magical Items. Getting the additional +1 edge on ONE thing in exchange for a penalty that is between 2-5x as impactful as the benefit is not a great deal just because it puts you very slightly ahead of the curve you can attain with non-consumable items.

If they want to make them more interesting than they are without them being completely dumbed down they can always create new Class Feats and Mutagenisict options to make them more powerful for the Alchemist who makes it or extend that benefit to party members for those versions made with Infused Reagents (so you can't make the improved versions with downtime that keep forever or can be bought in a store).

As for Class Archetypes, the corpse of that equine has been beaten into moldy stains, bonemeal, and dust for months now, it's a system with immense potential for making new and interesting concepts but whatever teams are leading the push for what types of content that get made has their head in the sand or, more likely, are operating under directions that the company would prefer a breadth of content for the system instead of verticality to the options that already exist.

[YuriP]

I agree a bit with Themetricsystem about mutagens but I have to remember that mutagens have a lore and a "mechanical" reason to have drawbacks.

The lore concept is to give to alchemist that concept of "experimental" solution specially when deal with life. While the "mechanical" concept is to prevent the most have aspect of buffs that we had in 3.x/PF1 of must have buffs that is only advantage to get to a point that there's no reason to not get it (this also happen here in PF2 and 5e with Longstrider, Darkvision...).

So I'm not against the drawbacks but there's some mutagens that needs some more benefits to become more interesting.

The main problem for mutagens for alchemist is the lack of a good chassis to justify the alchemist itself to use their own mutagens. The advantage of have the effect of 2 simultaneous mutagens isn't bad but isn't enough to compensate the effect of them in other classes. IMO alchemist needs some general effect use mutagen feats instead of the specific ones thats justify alchemist to prefer to use mutagem instead of give it to someone.

For example, instead of Invincible Mutagen give DR only when you use juggernaut mutagen it can give this benefit when you are under effect of any mutagen. And also more other general mutegens additional effect like additional damage, status AC bonus, status attack bonus, status save bonus and so on. To make the mutagenist more competitive with normal martials but keeping more flexibility and without locking feats into some specific mutagens.

About Class Archetypes I agree. The main sensation that I have is that a thing that have a tremendous potential but its very underused.
The class archetypes in practice are best developed to works between normal archetypes that's works for anyone and subclasses that only works in one specific class. A good example IMO is Flexible Spellcasting, an archetype that works in every 3 spells prepared casters so its more than a subclass that specific to one specific class but less than a normal archetype once its restricted to prepared 3 slots spellcasters.
Even now I keep thinking that the APGs classes could be class archetypes instead of full classes with much more flexibility (like rogue or ranger investigator, or wizard or druid witches, or bard or sorcerer oracles, or ranger, fighter or rogue swashbuclers).
There's many concepts of class archetypes that could work specifically well for a range of classes changing how they work similar to old prestige classes but in general the designers preferred to use more the normal archetypes than the classed ones and when need add prerequisites to it.

[Trip.H]

What I'm working on is making a point to not edit existing items, but yeah, that means Mutagenicist is/was the hardest to deal with. Even Toxicologist is rather straightforward.

For now, there's two early-ish Additives that are a part of the Muta's Research Field's progression to help with that.

"Resonant Suppressant" An X Lvl Additive that delays the drawback effects by 1 turn per 3 Additive Lvls.

"Hybridizer" An Additive that enables you to pick the benefits of one mutagen, but swap the drawbacks to that of another mutagen you have access to.

It does not fundamentally change the issues with mutagen drawbacks being so harsh, but it at least gives the PC that's dedicated themself to that exact line of items some tools to let them breath.

[ottdmk]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Getting the additional +1 edge on ONE thing in exchange for a penalty that is between 2-5x as impactful as the benefit is not a great deal just because it puts you very slightly ahead of the curve you can attain with non-consumable items.

The thing is, Mutagens, all of them, always benefit more than one thing. And the degree that they put you ahead of the curve varies by Mutagen.

I mean, my favourite Mutagen, Quicksilver, benefits three Skills, Reflex Saves, Speed, and Dex-based Strikes. I haven't done a comparison chart or anything, but I think it has the most benefits of any Mutagen, or at least the most variety.

Bestial grants scaling Unarmed attacks, gives its Item Bonus to all Unarmed attacks, plus it benefits Athletics. Major Bestial will also grant Weapon Specialization with the Unarmed Attacks, or Greater Weapon Specialization if you already have Weapon Specialization with Unarmed Attacks (in other words, any character L13+. Unless you're giving NPCs Greater Bestial, folks will get Greater Weapon Specialization with it.)

Juggernaut grants a decent chunk of Temp HP, plus it benefits Fortitude Saves. From Moderate onwards, the temp HP will regenerate if you're fully healed for 1 minute. Greater Juggernaut will bump any Fort Save from a success to a Crit Success, while Major also bumps any Crit Fail to a Fail.

Cognitive grants its Item Bonus to all Int-based Skills, any Recall Knowledge checks (regardless of Skill), and you cannot Critically Fail a Recall Knowledge check while using Cognitive. Greater Cognitive grants training in any Int-based Skill, which means you can use it to become trained in any Lore you want, with a +3 Item Bonus to the Recall Knowledge check and you can't crit fail. Major Cognitive can grant training in any skill, but given the Drawback affects all the physical ones I doubt anyone will use it for Athletics or Acrobatics, etc.

Silvertongue grants its bonus to all Cha based Skill Checks, and you can't crit fail any of them. Silvertongue might be the most limited Mutagen from the Core.

Serene Mutagen aids any Wis based Skill Check, plus it aids Will Saves, and will bump saves vs Mental effects with the Greater and Major versions.

As for the scaling, well, it depends on what's being helped. Skill Bonuses and Strikes are, generally speaking, +1 ahead of equivalent items. Saves are generally +2 ahead for 11 levels, and +1 for 9. Serene is kinda insane, as against Mental Effects it's +3 for 8 levels, +2 for 11, and finally +1 ahead at 20th.

The rest of the stuff isn't as easy to judge. Quicksilver's speed boost matches Longstrider/Tailwind at 3rd, then moves ahead at 11th and again at 17th. Juggernaut's temp hp? Not sure what else gives temp hp. Silvertongue and Cognitive's "you can't crit fail"? No clue. Saving throw bumps are generally Class Features that can't be grabbed outside of the base chassis.

So all of this stuff has to be considered when balancing things. Truth be told, I'm glad that's not my job.

[YuriP]

As I said before. IMO mutagens already are in a good place. The point is there's little reasons to use them as alchemist once that you won't be competitive enough with martial and casters with similar abilities.

For example Choker-Arm Mutagen is interesting to give reach to an ally and a high level alchemist can basically do this for all battles due its large number of reagents. But for alchemist itself have little use specially now in remaster where you can throw items to allies. It's main use is to give to allies to them increase their reach at cost of -1 to their hit-rate when you already have a bad weapon proficiency.

I know that its a bit exagerated example once that the spell alternative Enlarge is also useless to casters. But in general most mutagens are in same situation, there are polymorph and their buff usually makes more sense to be used in allies than in alchemist.

[ottdmk]

It's true that Alchemists are poorly positioned to use most combat Mutagens. Generally speaking, most will pick one of Bestial Mutagen, Fury Cocktails, or Quicksilver Mutagen. Maybe War Blood Mutagen if it's available to you.

It does make other choices less palatable. I played with a 3rd level Mutagenist in a PFS Scenario last night. They used Drakeheart as their Mutagen. So, excellent defense, but offense does suffer a bit.

Mutagenists get a lot more flexible at 13th. There are a number of interesting combinations. Fury Cocktail+ Energy for offense. Bestial + Drakeheart for defense. Quicksilver+ Sanguine. Etc. etc. etc.

Choker-Arm is an odd one. The only build I've come across that it works with is a Chirurgeon focused purely on support. I shudder to think what it would be like on a reach weapon fighter willing to suffer the Drawback though. Reactive Strike all over the battlefield, basically.

An Alchemist wanting to go Reach is better off gambling with their personal safety and going Titanic Fury Cocktail IMHO. I play my Mutagenist with the weapon die bump from Feral Mutagen; the -2 AC is survivable with a shield. The -3 Reflex Saves from Titanic are daunting though.

[MEATSHED]

The main issue with bestial is that its weapons kind of suck until you have feral or greater, which are both decently late options for getting an unarmed strike die equal what monks get at level 1.

[ottdmk]

MEATSHED wrote:

The main issue with bestial is that its weapons kind of suck until you have feral or greater, which are both decently late options for getting an unarmed strike die equal what monks get at level 1.

I don't know about that, personally. Lesser Bestial gives a d6 Bite with Agile d4 Claws and yeah, that's definitely worse than Monk Unarmed.

Moderate though comes in at 3rd and gives a d8 Bite with d6 Agile Claws. That's basically equal to most Monk Stances. The only one I can find that beats it is Dragon Stance, with the d10 Dragon Tail attack and no restrictions on other Strikes (meaning you can use a d6 generic Agile punch along with it.)

Once you get Feral, that adds in Deadly d10, which only Cobra Fang gives you on the Monk side. I'm not a huge fan of Cobra Stance; poison damage can be tricky. And if you like living dangerously (I do, I'll admit) you can go d10 Bite/d8 Agile Claws with Feral which will match Dragon Stance on the high end and surpass it on the low.

Where Monks definitely have the advantage is they get Weapon Specialization at 7th. That counts for a lot.

I decided to go Martial Artist Dedication on my Mutagenist (love Follow-Up Strike) so he has all three damage types: d10 Piercing Bite, d8 Slashing Claws and d6 Bludgeoning <insert body part here>.

[MEATSHED]

ottdmk wrote:

MEATSHED wrote:

The main issue with bestial is that its weapons kind of suck until you have feral or greater, which are both decently late options for getting an unarmed strike die equal what monks get at level 1.

I don't know about that, personally. Lesser Bestial gives a d6 Bite with Agile d4 Claws and yeah, that's definitely worse than Monk Unarmed.

Moderate though comes in at 3rd and gives a d8 Bite with d6 Agile Claws. That's basically equal to most Monk Stances. The only one I can find that beats it is Dragon Stance, with the d10 Dragon Tail attack and no restrictions on other Strikes (meaning you can use a d6 generic Agile punch along with it.)

That is still just worse than the standard d8 agile strikes stances usually have.

[Red Griffyn]

YuriP wrote:

Calm down there!

...Now this to declare incompetence on the part of designers, which is what was understood to me in your answer, it is too far away, because if it was the case we would not even be arguing, the game would simply have been a flop, which it wasn't.

And going to the specific case of the alchemist, warpriest and the remaster and etc. What we have is not a case of incompetence, but of vision divergence. What you, and part of the community wanted for the class is different from what the designers wanted with the same class. What the designers wanted was to make all-round classes that they didn't fall into the CoDzilla problem, something that almost everyone agrees, but while the designer chose to leave these super versatile classes at the cost of reducing their power and efficiency in each area, to thus prevent them from overshadowing other more specific classes, many community members preferred to be part of this versatility to be sacrificed in place of a specialization that provided a greater power for a specific role in competitible with that of other classes.

But it is not incompetence, but you who want something different from which the class was designed to do.

This is an important factor, because none of the erratas, nor does the remaster actually try to change the base design of any of the classes, precisely to prevent any of them change so significantly any of the classes to the point that this breaks someone's build who is already playing and likes the class...

I didn't say and have never said Paizo designers were incompetent. So anywhere in your post where you use that word, you've not understood my critique.

There are key system elements that are not designed well and have not been fixed after many years of trying. I wouldn't say they are the majority or highly numerous, but I and other's shouldn't be silenced in identifying them. Largely this happens because of the community insistence that it was 'good and Paizo can do no wrong' which stifles constructive discourse/idea generation and sharing. As well, Paizo designers have generally refused to go back and make big changes to existing design. That refusal to take a bold new direction is what I'm trying to point out and why I'm not optimistic that 'this time' will be any different. The alchemist is exactly one of those design elements. They tried it out, they tried fixing it multiple times in 3-4 erratas or with various items in various books and it still isn't a very satisfying class or what most in the community consider 'fixed'. It is almost a meme at this point that the 'alchemist will be fixed in the next big w/e item book that has all the best new alchemical items your brain can think of'. If your car engine is broken, you don't repaint the car and hope it works nor do you have to necessarily trash it all and buy a new car. But 'step 1' is to acknowledge the problem and then go hire a mechanic to fix the engine/bring in replacement parts. So Paizo needs to 'acknowledge the problem' (specifically the 'root cause' of the problem) and then fix the root cause of the problem with more impactful/bold/meaningful changes that need not deprive people of what they currently love.

Avoiding a CODZILLA is a noble goal. However, this point your making isn't hyper relevant. I don't hear anyone saying that the base chassis of 'bounded caster' is overpowered. So a bounded caster chassis cleric, druid, bard, etc. will equally not be overpowered. They could have used 3 pages to describe a new subclass for cleric/druid/bard that are bounded casters subclasses and still left the current remaster warpriest in the book. They could have published a new bounded caster archetype or class archetype to convert a base caster class into a bounded caster. You know just like how they literally did the exact same thing to convert a prepared caster to spontaneous caster in the same book as the magus via 'flexible caster'.

Everyone keeps proposing this false dichotomy of it must be A OR B. They can easily give us both A AND B. What I want doesn't have to come at the expense of what others like from the current system design. I don't even care if you call it warpriest/inquisitor/shaman/shifter/skald/bloodrager/hunter/mesmerist (the name is irrelevant). However, the game is clearly missing the spiritual successor to many of the 3/4 BAB and 2/3 Caster hybrid classes from PF1e. Its been years since the magus and we still don't have a bounded caster that uses the divine, occult, or nature spell lists despite me seeing so many posts asking for it. Everyone and their brother on pathfinder infinite has seen the desire for the design space to be filled and published something but the primary system designer can't see what is right in front of their faces? (**tinfoil hat goes on**)It has to be on purpose/deliberate at this point, which makes constantly critiquing them for it all the more important if you want to see the stuff before year 10 when the edition wraps up and they start publishing PF3e (sucks to be you PF1e shifter). (**tinfoil hat comes off**).

Honestly at this point I just want PC2 out so the guys at team+ can get the new base design and expedite publishing Alchemist+. That has a high probability of delivering on what I want, just like literally every other Team+ publication vs. Paizo.

I think if Paizo had entered into remaster space with the base assumption that the core/APG classes needed to be re-approached with the amazing new design principles/philosophies applied to the thaumaturge, psychic, kineticist, etc. that we would have come away amazing new remaster classes. Don't just slaughter the DND sacred cows but also the pathfinder/2e sacred cows as well. PC1 hasn't shown us that they are doing that. However, nothing would make me happier than for me to by hoisted by my own petard and eat crow in July 2024 and say that the new alchemist is awesome. I just would not bet money on that happening.

[ottdmk]

MEATSHED wrote:

That is still just worse than the standard d8 agile strikes stances usually have.

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

There are currently 17 Monk Stances. Of those 17, 4 offer a d8 Agile attack, so, a smidge under 25%. Of those 4, one, Tangled Forest Stance, only becomes available at Level 8... the same level as Feral Mutagen can grant a d8 Agile attack. So, I don't really count that.

So, 3 of 17 Stances with Agile d8. Stumbling Stance has the disadvantage of disallowing all Strikes other than Stumbling Swings... and personally, I prefer the ability to choose different attacks when I need to.

Leaving Tiger Stance and Wolf Stance.

So, you're correct: there are d8 Monk Stance Agile Strikes out there, and I fully agree, a d8 Agile is better than a non-Agile d8. However, saying that "stances usually have" a d8 Agile is a misrepresentation of the Monk Class.

[MEATSHED]

ottdmk wrote:

MEATSHED wrote:

That is still just worse than the standard d8 agile strikes stances usually have.

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

There are currently 17 Monk Stances. Of those 17, 4 offer a d8 Agile attack, so, a smidge under 25%. Of those 4, one, Tangled Forest Stance, only becomes available at Level 8... the same level as Feral Mutagen can grant a d8 Agile attack. So, I don't really count that.

So, 3 of 17 Stances with Agile d8. Stumbling Stance has the disadvantage of disallowing all Strikes other than Stumbling Swings... and personally, I prefer the ability to choose different attacks when I need to.

Leaving Tiger Stance and Wolf Stance.

given the criteria that you are applying removes 12 out of 17 stances, 2/5 is close enough to 50% that I'm willing to say usually, especially because it was 2/3 before secrets of magic.

[ottdmk]

I'm not sure I follow you. I eliminated 13 of 17 stances because they don't offer what you said "stances usually have" : an Agile d8 attack.

I can put it another way: of the 10 Stances available to a 1st level Monk, 3 of them offer a d8 Agile. I still don't think that 3/10 of the available options qualifies for a "stances usually have" general statement.

[shroudb]

ottdmk wrote:

I'm not sure I follow you. I eliminated 13 of 17 stances because they don't offer what you said "stances usually have" : an Agile d8 attack.

I can put it another way: of the 10 Stances available to a 1st level Monk, 3 of them offer a d8 Agile. I still don't think that 3/10 of the available options qualifies for a "stances usually have" general statement.

thing is, if you're only getting something "as good as" something that doesn't has a huge penalty tied to it, then there's no reason to it.

if you are getting the penalty, then the mutagen forms should be a clear upgrade compared to what you can get with a level 1 feat like the stances. and they are not, not until very high level at least and with extra negatives added to that.

for half of your career, the "bonus" of getting those attacks, is a trivial upgrade over most d6 agile unarmed options of which there are dozens.

so are basically getting a +1 attack for a -1 AC AND -2 reflex.

which is extremely underpowered, considering that there are also dozens of ways to get +1 to attacks without any negatives tied to it.

[Red Griffyn]

SuperBidi wrote:

Also, speaking of "the class fantasy" when it comes to the Alchemist is a bit of a stretch. Prior to PF1, Alchemist was not a thing at all. And PF1 Alchemist is notoriously overpowered (and I can tell from experience) which allows it to embody more fantasies than it should.

If you base yourself on the description of the Alchemist, the class is pretty much delivering the fantasy (it's mostly speaking of tinkering with
a great number of alchemical items).

Class fantasy of the alchemist is easy. For me it is a bomber extraordinaire.

Right now the alchemist is a pill dispenser model that is best at giving out its items instead of using them. I honestly don't even care about most of the options that contribute to it's versatile power (healing potions, poisons, etc.). I want the option to sacrifice all of that and bomb the s!@% out of people with different radius, selective positioning, strategic energy uses/debuff bombs. I want Master scaling for attacks with bombs/unarmed strikes (so mutagenists can have their cake) and master in class DC. I want my proficiency and item bonus to hit to match a martial progression so that I can 'RELIABLY hit' with the bomb against an at level threat without any dead levels. I want that token pirate who is a little crazy throwing bombs as their pass time.

I don't even get what you mean by alchemist wasn't a thing prior to PF1e. Not only is that irrelevant because PF1e is old enough to provide the basis. It also just isn't true? Alchemy at least goes back to DND2e or the ebberon setting (I think 3/3.5) where it was typically a subclass feature of wizards or artificers. Iconic items like the alchemy jug go even farther back to DND1e published in 1979.

But lets stay within the 'realm of pathfinder'. The PF1e alchemist was a 'non-support/selfish' class. It couldn't share its mutagens without the infusion discovery. Every odd level its bombs got more powerful (basically the sneak attack of the class and you wouldn't claim SA doesn't tie to a rogue?). It was a 3/4 BAB class which translates to a martial in the PF2e system.

Since we both played PF1e alchemists you'll agree then that a LARGE portion of the class was throwing bombs. Just because it was overpowered because touch AC didn't scale at all with level doesn't mean we can't have a balanced PF2e version. No need to try to infer that I want some kind of overpowered class.

[Squiggit]

MEATSHED wrote:

is still just worse than the standard d8 agile strikes stances usually have.

The numbers are really underwhelming early, but by level 11 you can be swinging d10 agile deadly and d12 deadly, which no one gets anything comparable to. It's really goofy that the die is so horrible at low levels though.

Red Griffyn wrote:

I honestly don't even care about most of the options that contribute to it's versatile power (healing potions, poisons, etc.). I want the option to sacrifice all of that and bomb the s&#& out of people with different radius, selective positioning, strategic energy uses/debuff bombs.

So do that? Master in attacks would be ideal for the alchemist but bomber is already by far the best at dedicating their resources selfishly and have a ton of reasonably good options at their disposal.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Since we both played PF1e alchemists you'll agree then that a LARGE portion of the class was throwing bombs.

Not really. The big popular PF2 builds were largely about either exploiting specific tech, or about abandoning bombs entirely for mutagens. The straight bomber was genuinely kind of scuffed in PF1 and not all that competitive (again, outside some specific tech options). Your base damage was just sneak attack without an actual weapon behind it, and it's not like SA was considered very good to begin with. It also had even worse resource issues than its PF2 counterpart.

[Gortle]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Class fantasy of the alchemist is easy. For me it is a bomber extraordinaire.

That is just part of my expectations for the class. I expect all sort of mutagens at least.

[MEATSHED]

Squiggit wrote:

MEATSHED wrote:

is still just worse than the standard d8 agile strikes stances usually have.

The numbers are really underwhelming early, but by level 11 you can be swinging d10 agile deadly and d12 deadly, which no one gets anything comparable to. It's really goofy that the die is so horrible at low levels though.

Yeah I was referring to pre level 8, some alchemical items just kind of suck at lower levels. It probably isn't the worst honestly, that probably goes to minor elixirs of life because it also runs into more action economy issues.

[shroudb]

even at 11, the fact that you need an extra mid-level feat and take an additional -1 to your AC, bringing you to a total of -2 to your AC, to reach that, isn't exactly great.

without the extra penalties and extra feat costs, a level 11 mutagen "just" finally makes you equal to using unarmed compared to a level 1 feat, bringing you at d8 agile/ d10 non agile, which is about the same as level 1 stances.

[ottdmk]

Look, I'm not trying to say that Bestial provides better Unarmed Attacks than Stances do, but I do think that it's fairly competitive and I would appreciate it if we could at least make accurate comparisons.

With a Monk Stance (Stumbling, Tiger, Wolf) you can have a d8 Agile attack from Level 1. Awesome. Or, you could go with something like Dragon Stance to get a d10 non-Agile. Again, awesome. However, you can't have both. Well, you can, but only one type of Stance attack per turn, and that requires a L16 Class Feat. Unless I've missed something. In which case, please let me know.

With Bestial you can have both, either at 8th level with a Feat Investment and a good lack of common sense, or at 11th level without either. I've found that there are advantages in having the choice of attacks. YMMV.

And you also have to take into consideration that both Bestial Mutagen and Feral Mutagen are about more than just damage. Bestial works very well with an Athletics build. I've appreciated having +2 to Athletics since 3rd level, especially as the Lifting Belt (+1) isn't available until 4th. I've also appreciated not having to buy the Belt or Armbands of Athleticism.

Feral Mutagen grants that same Item Bonus to Intimidation checks, and that's also been a lot of fun. Again, I appreciate not having to buy a Demon Mask or a Mask of the Bansee. Maybe I should've bought a Demon Mask... the bonus would've been nice for Levels 4-7. But I never got around to it.

And the final thing to remember about Feral (although this is going back to Damage)... you don't have to bump the AC penalty and the die sizes. You can choose to do so or not every time you take Bestial. So if it's a solo Boss fight, you can play it safe if you want to and still have two Deadly d10 Unarmed Strikes. If it's a bunch of mooks, you can throw caution to the winds and go for a little bit of extra damage. The choice is yours, every time.

One thing I was surprised about: that Deadly Strikes is a capstone Monk Feat. I would've expected it to come in a little earlier.

[shroudb]

ottdmk wrote:

Look, I'm not trying to say that Bestial provides better Unarmed Attacks than Stances do, but I do think that it's fairly competitive and I would appreciate it if we could at least make accurate comparisons.

With a Monk Stance (Stumbling, Tiger, Wolf) you can have a d8 Agile attack from Level 1. Awesome. Or, you could go with something like Dragon Stance to get a d10 non-Agile. Again, awesome. However, you can't have both. Well, you can, but only one type of Stance attack per turn, and that requires a L16 Class Feat. Unless I've missed something. In which case, please let me know.

With Bestial you can have both, either at 8th level with a Feat Investment and a good lack of common sense, or at 11th level without either. I've found that there are advantages in having the choice of attacks. YMMV.

And you also have to take into consideration that both Bestial Mutagen and Feral Mutagen are about more than just damage. Bestial works very well with an Athletics build. I've appreciated having +2 to Athletics since 3rd level, especially as the Lifting Belt (+1) isn't available until 4th. I've also appreciated not having to buy the Belt or Armbands of Athleticism.

Feral Mutagen grants that same Item Bonus to Intimidation checks, and that's also been a lot of fun. Again, I appreciate not having to buy a Demon Mask or a Mask of the Bansee. Maybe I should've bought a Demon Mask... the bonus would've been nice for Levels 4-7. But I never got around to it.

And the final thing to remember about Feral (although this is going back to Damage)... you don't have to bump the AC penalty and the die sizes. You can choose to do so or not every time you take Bestial. So if it's a solo Boss fight, you can play it safe if you want to and still have two Deadly d10 Unarmed Strikes. If it's a bunch of mooks, you can throw caution to the winds and go for a little bit of extra damage. The choice is yours, every time.

One thing I was surprised about: that Deadly Strikes is a capstone Monk Feat. I...

yes, but you've also exluded all the strong additional traits and abilities the stances offer in addition to the damage die.

the realism in those statements is that you've paid an 8th level feat instead of a 1st level one and more importantly you are taking a -2 to your AC and to your Reflex saves.

That's more of a penalty that a giant instnct barbarian gets (because at least in their case, clumsy doesn't stack with othr status penalties, mutagen penalty stacks with everything)

---

the athletics bonus is good, i don't deny that, but 99% of the times in all the games i've played or seen played a mutagenist, the intimidation bonus is worthless due to a severe lack of both Cha and Skill increases available (after all, two of your 3 skill increases, crafting and athletics, are already spoken for)

---

so, overall, you are really just getting a +1 attack for a -1 AC and -2 reflex. While the vast majority of effects in existence offer a +1 without any negatives.

---

you want bestial to be good? remove the 8th level feat tax and simply upgrade the damage dices from level 1. That means that at level 3 you should have what you have now at level 8 without any sort of extra penalties attached to it.

---

Although, my PERSONAL idea to "fix" mutagens would be to attach actions on them.

as an example:
level 1 beastial:
you gain access to "rend (free action): after you hit an enemy with 2 claw attacks in the same round, deal 1d6 damage to him"
level 3 beastial:
you gain access to Rend and, Rake (2 action activity): do a bite, claw and claw Strike against the same enemy"
level11 beastial:
you gain access to rend, rake and Pounce (2 action activity): stride towards an enemy and then do 2 claw Strikes gainst him.

and etc for all the mutagens.

Now you have something that instead of being a bland, boring "+1/-2 on average", it instead has a reason to give you said penalties since it also gives you options that your class doesn't give you.

[ottdmk]

Quote:

the athletics bonus is good, i don't deny that, but 99% of the times in all the games i've played or seen played a mutagenist, the intimidation bonus is worthless due to a severe lack of both Cha and Skill increases available (after all, two of your 3 skill increases, crafting and athletics, are already spoken for)

Depends on your build. My Mutagenist (9th level) is Str +4/Cha +4/Int +1. With Alchemical Familiar, he's down two Batches of Reagents compared to a max Int Alchemist, but for a Mutagenist, that's not a big deal. I don't plan to rush Cha to +5 at 15th, so I'm going to start boosting Int at 10th. Int +4 is plenty for a Mutagenist to finish off with.

He's also Master in both Athletics and Intimidation. Crafting can wait for 11th/13th.

So he's very solid with both. In hindsight, I wish I'd bumped Athletics to Master first, then Intimidation. I did it so that I could buy Battle Cry at 8th. I find I'm not using Battle Cry much though. I find it's tricky... really sucks to Demoralize something and then it goes next in the Initiative order. Ah well. Should I make it to Legendary the free action after a critical hit might be fun.

Bestial is like a lot of other Mutagens... you need to build for it. If you do, it does a lot for you.

[Ryangwy]

ottdmk wrote:

Quote:

the athletics bonus is good, i don't deny that, but 99% of the times in all the games i've played or seen played a mutagenist, the intimidation bonus is worthless due to a severe lack of both Cha and Skill increases available (after all, two of your 3 skill increases, crafting and athletics, are already spoken for)

Depends on your build. My Mutagenist (9th level) is Str +4/Cha +4/Int +1. With Alchemical Familiar, he's down two Batches of Reagents compared to a max Int Alchemist, but for a Mutagenist, that's not a big deal. I don't plan to rush Cha to +5 at 15th, so I'm going to start boosting Int at 10th. Int +4 is plenty for a Mutagenist to finish off with.

He's also Master in both Athletics and Intimidation. Crafting can wait for 11th/13th.

So he's very solid with both. In hindsight, I wish I'd bumped Athletics to Master first, then Intimidation. I did it so that I could buy Battle Cry at 8th. I find I'm not using Battle Cry much though. I find it's tricky... really sucks to Demoralize something and then it goes next in the Initiative order. Ah well. Should I make it to Legendary the free action after a critical hit might be fun.

Bestial is like a lot of other Mutagens... you need to build for it. If you do, it does a lot for you.

I suppose the only question is... why not mutagenic Investigator? That seems to do what you're trying to do here (strike focus, more non-Int skills) better. You don't even have to use strategic strike and you're going to hit more and deal more damage.

[ottdmk]

Simple... then I wouldn't be playing an Alchemist. My Mutagenist is 9th level now, with 11 Batches of Infused Reagents a day. An Alchemical Sciences Investigator doesn't even get half that number of Quick Vials... and they only get one Elixir or Tool per vial. Not the playstyle I'm looking for.

My guy makes minimum three Bestials a day, although I'm thinking of changing it to four. Couple of Darkvision Elixirs. Four Mistforms and four Numbing Tonics to supplement his fighting style. The other five Batches I freeform with every gaming day. Usually keep one or two for Quick Alchemy.

Alchemial Sciences guys can't make all the stuff I like using.

[shroudb]

so... a far cry of a normal alchemist.

why not make an animal barbarian, or a fighter, or a monk with alchemist dedication then? To me it looks like your alchemy is taking a very back seat compared to you simply hitting things. No Int, no Crafting, basically no vials from Int, that's exactly what the dedication is for,

Especially the animal barbarian can keep the same exact flavor turning into a beast in the fights and having renewable temp hp akin to beastial+numbing+darkvision but for every fight without extra actions and higher bonuses. Mistforms and etc can be provided with the dedication.

[Squiggit]

Feels kind of weird for someone to hop in and share a character self-described as "very solid" and then have the immediate response be people telling them to make a different class instead (especially when one of those suggestions is bar none worst class in the entire game).

Did I miss a part where ottdmk said the character was terrible and were looking for advice on new classes to play?

[shroudb]

Squiggit wrote:

Feels kind of weird for someone to hop in and share a character self-described as "very solid" and then have the immediate response be people telling them to make a different class instead (especially when one of those suggestions is bar none worst class in the entire game).

Did I miss a part where ottdmk said the character was terrible and were looking for advice on new classes to play?

not any weirder than trying to defend the Alchemist class while having minimum Int, no crafting, and basically no alchemy.

We just pointed out that this character does NOT follow the traditional class chassis and what he tries to accomplished could be accomplished better if he used something different.

"feels solid" is not a quantifiable metric.

for me, my Medic Investigator as an example was extremely solid in the campaign I played him, that doesn't make Investigator a strong class, in fact, you just described it as "the worst class bar none".

Someone pointing out that what my character was doing would have been better/easier accomplished if I used class X instead, doesn't either take away from my experience OR make him wrong. Both can be correct simultaneously.

[Ryangwy]

Squiggit wrote:

Feels kind of weird for someone to hop in and share a character self-described as "very solid" and then have the immediate response be people telling them to make a different class instead (especially when one of those suggestions is bar none worst class in the entire game).

Did I miss a part where ottdmk said the character was terrible and were looking for advice on new classes to play?

Seeing the sheer number of alchemical elixirs being gone through did clarify why Alchemist over Investigator; I simply wanted to know why, since if the only elixir you need are bestials and you're having issues keeping all skills you need maxed the Investigator is on paper better.

[ottdmk]

I have to admit, I've had a hard time putting this post together. I haven't felt so condescended to in quite a long time.

The thing that's missing from this conversation is simply this: the reason my build is a Mutagenist is that I wanted to play a Mutagenist.

I built a Bomber as my first PFS character. The first PF2e character I played from Level 1. And I really enjoyed it. I liked the chassis, I liked learning all the different items, I really liked watching things melt away when I hit them with an Acid Flask.

I thought there was more that could be done with Alchemist though. So I started looking at making a Mutagenist.

First step was deciding how the new guy would fight. I wanted to go different from my Bomber, so I figured, Bestial Mutagen, why not? Made my plans, including how to get around the Drawback as best I can (General Training, Shield Block). Then I went reading through the Feats.

Feral Mutagen looked really fun. Deadly d10? Sweet! Dice size bump if you're willing to risk your neck? Sure, why not? And then there was the fact that it would allow you to add Bestial's Item Bonus to Intimidate as well as Athletics.

So I started wondering: Could you build an Alchemist that could be great at both those skills, while still being an Alchemist? Turns out you could.

Couldn't work without being a Mutagenist though. OF the four Research Fields, Mutagenists can get by with the least Reagents. And I needed that, because to get really good with Strength and Charisma, I was going to have to leave Intelligence behind for a while.

Mutagenists don't use Class DC unless they're regularly using Poisons or certain Bombs, which I wasn't going to be doing. No Alchemist actually requires Crafting, although most get quite good with it. (Heck, my Mutagenist will be going for Crafting Master at 13th.) So the only real impact was in number of Batches of Infused Reagents per day.

Alchemical Familiar helps there, and if you're not a Bomber, odds are you take Alchemical Familiar at 1st level. So I started out with three Batches a day, and generally speaking I was able to save a Batch for Quick Alchemy surprises right out of the gate. And this was while being behind my Bomber by two Batches a day.

Oh, and I take offense at any suggestion that Alchemy is taking a back seat. Alchemy is used for almost everything my guy does, from the Lesser Silvertongue he chugs before any social encounter (Perpetual Infusions) to the Moderate Cognitive that he uses to keep his Martyr's Shield patched up. Plus Numbing Tonics, which imho are worth their weight in gp because the temp HP replenishes every round. (Actually, they're worth more than their weight in gp, as Moderate Numbing costs 150gp a dose.) And that's the tip of the iceberg, because Mutagenist is the best Research Field at using the entire Alchemist toolkit... and I've had a lot of fun using all the tools at my disposal.

I set out to make an Alchemist that was different from my first one, but make no mistake, he's very much still an Alchemist.

As for why I never looked at doing something with the Dedication? The Dedication is so limited it would drive me nuts. Advanced Alchemy Level 1 for four levels, 2-5? Level 3 for another four? Level 5 for 2 levels? Finally getting a decent progression at Level 12, but it's permanently five levels behind? Not to mention being permanently stuck with creating only two Items per batch, and they always have to be the same two? No thanks. I want all the toys at the earliest opportunity.

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

The Raven Black wrote:

amalgamemnon wrote:

I really hope Paizo just shows us what they're planning to do with Alchemist (or even a few options) and is open to feedback on it before sending this stuff off to be printed. June isn't that far off and Alchemist desperately needs some love to not feel like garbage.

They did not do this for Witch or Warpriest, yet the fans were not disappointed.

still not sure witch are decent as a class

the cauldron change are amazing but that is only 2 feat

even less than 3 of gadget feat

[Parry]

ottdmk wrote:

I have to admit, I've had a hard time putting this post together. I haven't felt so condescended to in quite a long time.

The thing that's missing from this conversation is simply this: the reason my build is a Mutagenist is that I wanted to play a Mutagenist.

Hey ottdmk, you should never feel obligated to respond to any of the less than charitable posts that are too often part of these discussion, but I wanted to say that I appreciate your insight and engagement with the alchemist! My first character for PF2 was an alchemist (a chirurgeon even) in Plaguestone of all things. Funnily enough, only the diabolic sorcerer and me did not need GM intervention to avoid death with the wolves under the tree.

I really like your take on the mutagenist here. I had been wrestling with a similar idea, but I couldn't bring myself to drop int lower than 16, so it still struggled a bit.

[MEATSHED]

To be fair 14 int runs into resource issues early on, which is something that I would hoped to be smoothed out a bit with the remaster because 1-3 alchemists could use a few more reagents.

[shroudb]

ottdmk wrote:

I have to admit, I've had a hard time putting this post together. I haven't felt so condescended to in quite a long time.

The thing that's missing from this conversation is simply this: the reason my build is a Mutagenist is that I wanted to play a Mutagenist.

I built a Bomber as my first PFS character. The first PF2e character I played from Level 1. And I really enjoyed it. I liked the chassis, I liked learning all the different items, I really liked watching things melt away when I hit them with an Acid Flask.

I thought there was more that could be done with Alchemist though. So I started looking at making a Mutagenist.

First step was deciding how the new guy would fight. I wanted to go different from my Bomber, so I figured, Bestial Mutagen, why not? Made my plans, including how to get around the Drawback as best I can (General Training, Shield Block). Then I went reading through the Feats.

Feral Mutagen looked really fun. Deadly d10? Sweet! Dice size bump if you're willing to risk your neck? Sure, why not? And then there was the fact that it would allow you to add Bestial's Item Bonus to Intimidate as well as Athletics.

So I started wondering: Could you build an Alchemist that could be great at both those skills, while still being an Alchemist? Turns out you could.

Couldn't work without being a Mutagenist though. OF the four Research Fields, Mutagenists can get by with the least Reagents. And I needed that, because to get really good with Strength and Charisma, I was going to have to leave Intelligence behind for a while.

Mutagenists don't use Class DC unless they're regularly using Poisons or certain Bombs, which I wasn't going to be doing. No Alchemist actually requires Crafting, although most get quite good with it. (Heck, my Mutagenist will be going for Crafting Master at 13th.) So the only real impact was in number of Batches of Infused Reagents per day.

Alchemical Familiar helps there, and if you're not a Bomber, odds are you take Alchemical Familiar...

I'm sorry if I was one of those that made you feel that way.

My purpose was never to "attack" anyone. Maybe my tone felt more harsh since due to English not being my native language my written words are more direct.

The essence of my post was basically this:

As I said earlier, one of the builds I had a lot of fun with was an Investigator, a class many call as bad. I don't particularly care if other find the class weak because I had fun. As you said you have fun with the character, and that's what matters.

But if the tools given to a class are good enough is a different question compared to if you have fun playing a character.

That's because there are so many different aspects that contribute to fun compared to straight up numbers.

As you said, your purpose was first and foremost to play an alchemist, as mine was to play a healer with 0 magic, those types of builds already start with handicaps. Making them work "for you" is different than being optimal, but that doesn't matter because the only thing you want is match your personal goals.

To put it differently, if mutagens had 0 penalties it wouldn't alter the core and essence of your build and what made it fun for you.

Calling your build outside of the norm fantasy of the alchemist, being an Alchemist that cant craft alchemical things till level 11-13 is not unfair criticism imo.

[YuriP]

25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

amalgamemnon wrote:

I really hope Paizo just shows us what they're planning to do with Alchemist (or even a few options) and is open to feedback on it before sending this stuff off to be printed. June isn't that far off and Alchemist desperately needs some love to not feel like garbage.

They did not do this for Witch or Warpriest, yet the fans were not disappointed.

still not sure witch are decent as a class

the cauldron change are amazing but that is only 2 feat

even less than 3 of gadget feat

I liked the new hexes and familiar abilities a lot.

As debuffers witches now reign supreme. What may happen is that some players may trying to playing as non-debuff witches and/or focusing too much in focus spells instead of spell slots and staffs. Forgetting that diferent from any other type of spells, debuffing works fine even lowest level slots.

And warpriest as I said before is more a name and concept problem due PF1 warpriest. Warpriest in PF2 is not an warpriest but an armored healer. Its a divine spellcaster who chooses to trade part of its magical power (spell DC/attack) in order to get a heavier armor and a bit more weapon proficiency. But its main focus is not offensive but healing, buffing and protecting. Its not a martial with healing abilities but a healer that knows to use an armor and weapon a bit better than most casters.

[Nelzy]

Hoping for a massive increase in "Chance to poison" for Toxicologist, Alchemists current attack Proficiency multiplied with monsters Saves and the poisons DC(even alchemist increased one) make the chance for poisons to do anything in a meaningful encounter abysmally smal.

Something need to change there, ither give Toxicologist Better proficiency with poisoned weapons or massively increase its DC on the poisons it self makes,

in short, increase the chance for an attack to land, or the chance for a failure on poison saves.

[Goblin Guard]

What if the alchemist was able to expend regents on modifying existing alchemical items instead of having to make them from scratch?

Eg. Spend a regent to give an alchemists fire an extra damage die (or a more interesting effect) but this modification is unstable and fades after a minute or smth (so limited ability to stock up ahead of time)

[Goblin Guard]

And alchemist automatically gets to use their class DC on all modified alchemical items (or even just all alchemical items for simplicity)

[YuriP]

Goblin Guard wrote:

What if the alchemist was able to expend regents on modifying existing alchemical items instead of having to make them from scratch?

Eg. Spend a regent to give an alchemists fire an extra damage die (or a more interesting effect) but this modification is unstable and fades after a minute or smth (so limited ability to stock up ahead of time)

It's an interesting proposal it's basically a Additive for non-quick alchemy items. It's something that I miss for the class.

Goblin Guard wrote:

And alchemist automatically gets to use their class DC on all modified alchemical items (or even just all alchemical items for simplicity)

Basically Powerful Alchemy for all alchemical items created no only for quick alchemy.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Nelzy wrote:

Hoping for a massive increase in "Chance to poison" for Toxicologist, Alchemists current attack Proficiency multiplied with monsters Saves and the poisons DC(even alchemist increased one) make the chance for poisons to do anything in a meaningful encounter abysmally smal.

Something need to change there, ither give Toxicologist Better proficiency with poisoned weapons or massively increase its DC on the poisons it self makes,

in short, increase the chance for an attack to land, or the chance for a failure on poison saves.

Personally, I wished poisons in general would work more like, say, the curse of death where a passing save would just afflict stage one for a single interval and automatically cure afterwards. No need to jack up DCs or anything, and it makes poison have a better shelf life.

Most poisons aren't overly frontloaded, so this would translate to a small bit of damage plus [condition] 1 for most cases

[yellowpete]

That could be a nice feature for the Toxicologist, but also maybe a bit much because they printed Clown Monarch

[ottdmk]

I wonder if giving a Toxicologist a Misfortune effect in one of their Field Discoveries would work? Have it so that if the vector works (target is injured, drinks the poisoned wine, breathes the cloud, etc.) the target has to roll twice and take the worse roll.

Too much?

[Alchemic_Genius]

yellowpete wrote:

That could be a nice feature for the Toxicologist, but also maybe a bit much because they printed Clown Monarch

Oh, if they did that change, I think basically all poisons would have to change to have fairly mild stage 1s since it'd be mostly garanteed as long as you poison is somewhere remotely close in the ballpark.

That said, I'd much prefer thatnover spending gold for a rider effect that mostly wont apply. Even when I played a toxicologist that preemptively poisoned every piece of ammo, I still didn't get many failed saved with the poisons and I eventually asked the gm to change to a bomber and I just used the blight bombs and actually felt like a better poison user than the poison user subclass

[Captain Morgan]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Nelzy wrote:

Hoping for a massive increase in "Chance to poison" for Toxicologist, Alchemists current attack Proficiency multiplied with monsters Saves and the poisons DC(even alchemist increased one) make the chance for poisons to do anything in a meaningful encounter abysmally smal.

Something need to change there, ither give Toxicologist Better proficiency with poisoned weapons or massively increase its DC on the poisons it self makes,

in short, increase the chance for an attack to land, or the chance for a failure on poison saves.

Personally, I wished poisons in general would work more like, say, the curse of death where a passing save would just afflict stage one for a single interval and automatically cure afterwards. No need to jack up DCs or anything, and it makes poison have a better shelf life.

Most poisons aren't overly frontloaded, so this would translate to a small bit of damage plus [condition] 1 for most cases

I also wish this. It's a bit shocking how ineffective poisons are compared to our expectations from media. Then again, one could say the same thing about getting stabbed. D&D has always done a bad job at representing harm and trauma.

[Dragonchess Player]

IMO, poisons might work better if their effect was more in line with bane ammunition: a persistent poison effect (possibly with a more specific duration/frequency for the effect[s] depending on the particular poison) that the target saves against to reduce/end instead of requiring a failed save to effect the target at all and additional saves to continue on an affliction track.

[Trip.H]

I didn't want to be premature with this, but that homebrew I mentioned is ready for a 0.9 post.

Most of all that's been suggested is in there, aside from a poison fortune effect. Poison damage on exposure events (doing stuff when poison's resisted), able to actually make + use poisons in combat, Additive to turn injury poisons inhaled, ect.

.

Alchemist Reformulated is my own attempt at a full Alchemist do over, not changing the core fantasy/class chassis, but fixing all the anti-synergy and getting it usable and fun. The moonshot is for any splinter of this to make it into official Paizo content, but this is high-effort enough that I'm going to look to 3rd party publishing. This first pass is going to remain free and online somewhere.

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

To make Alchemist work when the Research Fields are so different, I took inspiration from the Kineticist. Players don't get overloaded by text they never need to read, they'll skim as much of each element/Field to make their selection, then never need to worry about the other Field stuff.

Each Research Field unlocks an Additive and ephemeral (infused only) item each odd level up to 7, keeping a steady drip of evergreen signature tools to look forward to w/o overloading.

Quick Alchemy, and its "all book any time" is dead. The Research Field comes bundled with a core item trait (can get another via Feat) that limits your insta "Siphon Creation" items, but tapping that reservoir adds potency over prep items.

All the Alchemy stuff is unified under Reservoirs of Quintessence, which is where the daily reagents come from, and are 10min refilling wells that can be tapped to make an instant item.

Because of how bombers might want to chuck 5 or more bombs each fight while Muta's only need 1 core item, all Alchs start w/ 1 Reservoir, and can daily prep more for 2 reagents each. Not focus points, partly because Alchs also now have stuff competing for the 10 after combat refresh, like the Bomber's disposable armor adjustment that slots a bomb to give a reaction to do some mutual assured splashing, like RL reactive armor.

How many Reservoirs you make is the only daily locked-in commitment. Advanced Alch got renamed to Infused Alch to be more informative, and now can be done all day. Morning brewing is incentivized by variable batch size. Alch's Tools & 1 min --> 1. Item trait matches Field trait --> +1. Alch Laboratory & 10 min --> +1

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

By default, Additives are NOT for insta-made only, and that's the single most critical change IMO. Being able to carry improved alch items without the action tax of making them in combat is pretty big.

Each Field gets staple Additives to help their items scale as the item falls behind. Tox got that exposure poison dmg, Bomber's get Heavy bomb, Chiurgeons get Medicinal, ect.

It's small, especially early on when you don't have Feats to further boost item potency, but flat bonuses do add up.

And with Reservoirs being a 10 min recharge, it helps those few Additives that are limited to the insta-made Siphon Creation Additives to have the freedom to get a bit more oomph.

Double-Brew also got replaced with 2nd Additive, and being able to put 2 Additives into each item is a pretty big milestone.

Perpetual Items --> Bottomless Reservoirs. Inta-alch is already Field locked by default, so it's the same mechanics with a Bottomless Additive that imposes the extra restrictions.

Some of my favorite bits in there are the "Field Fusion" "Field-Found Discovery" & "Lab-Made Discovery" Feats, that are a way to put in higher level Field-specific unlocks that are optional & play-style specific, while still being potent and thematic.

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

One other thing is that all infused items by default decay when not attended by the Alch. L6 Feat to change that, but removing the "yall carry this, and that, and don't forget to use this one" from the class is IMO a needed step.

It looks like the preview doesn't let the internal jump links work, might need to DL the pdf. Sorry for the boring presentation, thankfully I didn't put any programmer art in there.

I'll make a proper post in homebrew later today, but want to get this early link out there ASAP. Only thing that's missing atm is the specific rules around how an Alch Dedication would work, and those Dedication-only Feats.

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

I'll be the first to say it's not 100% perfect, so please rip it with whatever criticism you can verbalize.

Nice thing is that it doesn't need to be perfect, just better than what came before/currently stands. If I might be so arrogant, I'd say that bar has certainly been cleared.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12QtH0c4iLmJRZ_HFtodCjRODkSYFeigL/view?usp= sharing

[Jacob Jett]

This seems intriguing.

[Squiggit]

This is some really cool homebrew but I really hope whatever we get in PC2 looks nothing like it. Being so heavily silo'd into one research field kills a big part of the class.

[Puna'chong]

I made a homebrew a while ago since Alchemist was my favorite 1e class (next to Witch and Occultist), but still couldn't convince any players to make one.

I mostly tried to push the feats more, make the specializations more impactful, add in focus point functionality, and include a rarity of item exclusive to Alchemists to basically make an Alchemist "spell list" like 1e.

Really, ultimately, I think I just wish they'd push the design back towards the 1e approach of not having the Alchemist's power tied to items anyone else can buy. That's what makes this class so fundamentally difficult, in my mind, because it's not self-contained and is basically coming pre-nerfed because its abilities are items, and items (as Paizo designs them) need to be weaker than class abilities. I think we're too far gone at this point, though.

[Trip.H]

Squiggit wrote:

This is some really cool homebrew but I really hope whatever we get in PC2 looks nothing like it. Being so heavily silo'd into one research field kills a big part of the class.

The only real "necessary evil" that limits your options is the change from all book instant items to those matching a Reservoir trait. The rest of it is basically handing out a set of Field-matching tools for free, it's a bonus.

You can absolutely take Feats that seem tailored to another Field, and there's always room to add a Feat or two that grants partial access to another Field's discoveries.

And as you can make prep items from infused reagents at any time, it really does help. Once you get a Lab in a Bag, that's already back to the 2 of any item per reagent during a 10min break.

You can also get more traits for your reservoir via Feats, and if you get an Additive that adds a trait, like Explosive Delivery adding bomb, then it becomes eligible as well.

Basically, I decided to make the act of Siphon Creation more of a big deal than QAlch was. But each con has a real pro.

The Reservoirs recharge freely at no cost for "infinite" uses, but you can only Siphon Creation once per Reservoir until that 10min recharge. That "can only insta-make once per Reservoir per combat" is partly why I'm comfortable with Siphon Creation being a free action flourish.

Siphon Creation also gives the items a big potency boost, and using that with a scaling Additive means those insta items will have a small numerical superiority to the prep items, and to what the current Alchemist does.

I've already gotten some feedback from my own table as well, and am making some changes for the 0.91 version.

All feedback like this is great to receive, so keep it coming.

[WWHsmackdown]

Puna'chong wrote:

I made a homebrew a while ago since Alchemist was my favorite 1e class (next to Witch and Occultist), but still couldn't convince any players to make one.

I mostly tried to push the feats more, make the specializations more impactful, add in focus point functionality, and include a rarity of item exclusive to Alchemists to basically make an Alchemist "spell list" like 1e.

Really, ultimately, I think I just wish they'd push the design back towards the 1e approach of not having the Alchemist's power tied to items anyone else can buy. That's what makes this class so fundamentally difficult, in my mind, because it's not self-contained and is basically coming pre-nerfed because its abilities are items, and items (as Paizo designs them) need to be weaker than class abilities. I think we're too far gone at this point, though.

Im right there with you. Id be fine with the remastered alchemist still being an item vending machine, I'd just want that to be in addition to feat based, scaling, reusable effects. Basically impulses that are worded in an alchemical bent. Then the class scaling is smooth as butter AND they still interact with alchemical crafting