Alchemists don't come with alchemist's toolkits?


Rules Discussion


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can't seem to find any mention of an alchemist starting play with an alchemist's toolkit for free.

Do I really have to spend a 5th of my limited starting funds on something so intrinsically necessary for my class' function?

Wizards get spellbooks, witch's familiars, martials their fist and teeth. Why do alchemist's need to spend that gold to FUNCTION AT ALL?


Very few martial characters have a jaws attack with their teeth and most (monks are the exception) prefer to attack with weapons rather than fists. Therefore, they buy weapons and armor. An alchemist's toolkit is 3gp, but a breastplate is 8gp. First-level characters start out with 15gp, so they can afford it.

Cognates

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't exactly call a 1d4 weapon with non-lethal "functioning".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are lots of similar thing. Like any character automatically Trained in Medicine doesn't get a free Healer's Kit, a Rogue doesn't get Thieves' Tools for free.
It's true that it's more important to the Alchemist than to other characters, but it's not that expensive.

Ravingdork wrote:
Wizards get spellbooks

I react to that: If the Wizard didn't get a spellbook then it wouldn't start with any spell (as they are in their spellbook), making the class non functional at first level even if you buy a Spellbook. So it's slightly different than the Alchemist case. As a side note, the Alchemist has a Formula Book, for the same reason the Wizard has a Spellbook.

So I think it's better to consider that classes never get free stuff unless the class would be non-functional if you don't have it prior to buying your gear.


SuperBidi wrote:

Well, when you phrase it like that, then the Alch 100% should start with a free toolkit.

Alchemist needs both their formula book and a toolkit to use their class features. Daily items / Adv Alch directly states that it requires a toolkit or laboratory. Quick Alc requires a toolkit. In theory, even the new free Versatile Vials require a kit, as that's where they exist/are located.

It's like if a Wiz needed a component pouch for every spell, the pouch cost 3gp, and no Wiz started with one.

IMO, this isn't just an issue of starting gp fairness. It's also the bizarre "trap" / knowledge check associated with it.

You need to notice that you both require a kit, and that you lack it.
Otherwise your first session you're going to be a bit aggravated once you get into your first combat and find yourself non-functional.


Gunslingers don't get a firearm. Champions get neither armor or a shield. A Cleric doesn't get their deity's holy symbol or anything else to use as a focus component for their spells that might need them. Bards don't get a musical instrument.

Some of those may be more detrimental to the character's functionality than others, but they all fit the theme. Yes, you do need to pay money for your equipment.

The only classes I can think of as an exception are the Thaumaturge and the Inventor. Weapon Thaumaturge starts with a free weapon, and Inventor can start with either a free weapon (free for level 0 only) or free armor.


Trip.H wrote:
Well, when you phrase it like that, then the Alch 100% should start with a free toolkit.

No, the Alchemist doesn't need a Toolkit prior to buying equipment to be functional. But it needs a Formula Book otherwise it would start with no formula.


Pretty much what Superbidi said, the only things every class gets for free is something that is 100% neccesary for the key features to function.

Gunslingers don't get a firearm cleaning kit. But Thaumaturge gets a mundane item to act as their implement, Wizards get their spellbook.

Alchemists can technically function without an Alchemists toolkit provided they have access to an Alchemist's Lab or similar. Thats more suitable for level 0 though.

But its arguably more for Class Parity. We do have Class Kits in Player Core 2 where we see the expected gold after considering the essentials being around 8 gold. Most martial weapons cost between 2-4 gold but unless we are talking the crossbow an Alchemist is more likely to pick up a weapon 1 gold or under.


For me, it's because the 15 gold pieces are not a given. The GM may decide to start with the PCs imprisoned, and as such without equipment. And most classes will perform fine once they find some form of equipment... but the Wizard and Alchemist who don't need just any spell/formula book but their spell/formula book (or at least something rather close to it as it's painful to play a Bomber without Bombs or a Necromancer with just evocation spells). So I think it's well done that way.


SuperBidi wrote:
Trip.H wrote:
Well, when you phrase it like that, then the Alch 100% should start with a free toolkit.
No, the Alchemist doesn't need a Toolkit prior to buying equipment to be functional. But it needs a Formula Book otherwise it would start with no formula.

To phrase this a different way, SuperBidi seems to be making a distinction between 'unusable' and 'nonfunctional'.

Without alchemist toolkit, Quick Alchemy is unusable. You can't use the action because the toolkit is required. But once you have a toolkit, then the ability becomes fully usable immediately.

Without the starting formula book, an alchemist is nonfunctional. They can't use Quick Alchemy because they have no formulas. And buying a blank formula book doesn't change that. They would still have no formulas and would not be able to use Quick Alchemy.


SuperBidi wrote:
For me, it's because the 15 gold pieces are not a given. The GM may decide to start with the PCs imprisoned, and as such without equipment. And most classes will perform fine once they find some form of equipment... but the Wizard and Alchemist who don't need just any spell/formula book but their spell/formula book (or at least something rather close to it as it's painful to play a Bomber without Bombs or a Necromancer with just evocation spells). So I think it's well done that way.

Yeah theres def been one or two campaigns i've done like that where the wizards spellbook is just a single piece of cloth with charcoal they wrote while imprisoned.

Though a bomber without access to alchemy lab or alchemist tools is still just as much without bombs as a bomber without their formula book. Not gaining starting formulas though is absolutely horrid, Even after getting gear you are screwed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The alchemists tools are more equivalent to a martial character's weapons than a spellbook.

A martial character without weapons is using their fists only. But when they can get a weapon - even an improvised weapon - they become functional.

An alchemist without a toolkit cannot make bombs or elixirs. But when they can get a toolkit, they become functional.

An alchemist without their starting formula book can't create anything ever. It would be like a Fighter that is not allowed to use Strike until they pay for a license from the local constables. In addition to also needing to buy a sword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
Gunslingers don't get a firearm. Champions get neither armor or a shield. A Cleric doesn't get their deity's holy symbol or anything else to use as a focus component for their spells that might need them. Bards don't get a musical instrument.

The only one of those that's really comparable is the firearm. Clerics, Bards, and Champions all function without.

'Function' is the key word here. Obviously you want armor on your champion. Musical instruments suit bards just fine... but in terms of core class features actually working at all, they can do without.

The Alchemist however, literally cannot use their primary class features wihtout a toolkit or lab. The Gunslinger cannot utilize its martial mechanics without a gun.

Pretty clear distinction there.

Quote:
The only classes I can think of as an exception are the Thaumaturge and the Inventor. Weapon Thaumaturge starts with a free weapon, and Inventor can start with either a free weapon (free for level 0 only) or free armor.

Giant Instinct barbarians also receive their oversized weapon for free.

So we have Wizards, Giant Barbs, Weapon Inventors, Thaumaturge Implements... Gunslingers and Alchemists actually seem like the odd ones out here in terms of having class features that rely on items but don't get basic support for free.

Your point here is what actually changed my mind, originally I was going to post something similar to what SuperBidi said, but from your examples it's pretty clear that this is both not a great design choice and also somewhat aberrant with how a handful of other classes work.

NorrKnekten wrote:


Though a bomber without access to alchemy lab or alchemist tools is still just as much without bombs as a bomber without their formula book.

I mean that strikes me as a good argument for giving them both.


Finoan wrote:
Pixel Popper wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Wizards get spellbooks
I react to that: If the Wizard didn't get a spellbook then it wouldn't start with any spell (as they are in their spellbook), making the class non functional at first level even if you buy a Spellbook. So it's slightly different than the Alchemist case. As a side note, the Alchemist has a Formula Book, for the same reason the Wizard has a Spellbook...

Uhm, by your own logic here, the Alchemist is not functional until he purchases his tools.

Sure, the Wizard must have his spellbook to prepare spells, but he needs nothing else. An Alchemist, however, cannot prepare his substances with formula book alone; he must have Alchemist Tools.

And by your own logic above, the alchemists tools are more equivalent to a martial character's weapons than a spellbook.

A martial character without weapons is using their fists only. But when they can get a weapon - even an improvised weapon - they become functional.

An alchemist without a toolkit cannot make bombs or elixirs. But when they can get a toolkit, they become functional.

An alchemist without their starting formula book can't create anything ever. It would be like a Fighter that is not allowed to use Strike until they pay for a license from the local constables. In addition to also needing to buy a sword.

I deleted the original while you were replying, mainly because I didn't feel that my posts added anything of positive value to the conversation.


The alternative is default kits and reduced starting gold, making things awkward if someone has a level 1 dedication somehow or two characters could share the same kit, or if a build somehow alters their default needs, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Norrknekten wrote:
Though a bomber without access to alchemy lab or alchemist tools is still just as much without bombs as a bomber without their formula book.
I mean that strikes me as a good argument for giving them both.

Was more an argument about alchemist needing to be accommodated if the 15 gold worth of equipment isnt a given. I would not want to roll up to a session 1 prison break and find that out the GM never intended to let me gain the neccesary tools until 5 sessions in. Otherwise I just look at the toolkit as what would've been the cost of a martial weapon for other classes, The alchemist typically don't use particularly expensive equipment outside of maybe a crossbow.

Agonarchy wrote:
The alternative is default kits and reduced starting gold, making things awkward if someone has a level 1 dedication somehow or two characters could share the same kit, or if a build somehow alters their default needs, etc.

We have new class kits in Player Core 2 though?

The Alchemist one containing; Studded leather, Dagger, Sling, Alchemist tools and Caltrops ontop of an adventurers pack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pixel Popper wrote:
I deleted the original while you were replying, mainly because I didn't feel that my posts added anything of positive value to the conversation.

Ah. So you did. I edited mine to match since it is still in edit window.


Player Core 2 pg 58 wrote:
Advanced Alchemy: During your daily preparations, you spend some time to create alchemical items that can be used over the course of the day. You don't need to attempt a Crafting check to do this, you can use an alchemist's toolkit instead of an alchemist's lab, and you ignore both the number of days typically required to create the items and any alchemical raw materials requirements. You can Craft a number of alchemical items up to 4 + your Intelligence modifier. Each item must be in your formula book, have an item level equal to or lower than your level, and have the consumable trait. These items have the infused trait and remain potent for 24 hours or until your next daily preparations, whichever comes first.

So a Wizard with a Spellbook can prepare their Spells. An Alchemist without either a Toolkit or a Lab cannot do any Alchemy, period, even with a Formula Book.

Still, I don't think it's much of a hassle, barring a scenario like the postulated (PCs are imprisoned without gear.) Worst case, if the Alchemist can get ahold of the right tools, they can make a Toolkit in two days with a roll of 7+.


I believe that the distinction between an alchemist's formula book, which is free, and alchenist's tools, which the alchemist must purchase, is not about functionality. Instead, it is about customization.

Player Core 2, Alchemist, page 58 wrote:

Formula Book

An alchemist keeps meticulous formulas for every item they can create. You start with a standard formula book for free. The formula book contains the formulas for two common 1st-level alchemical items of your choice, in addition to any formulas you gained from Alchemical Crafting and your research field.

The player chooses the formulas for the formula book, so a random non-blank formula book will have the wrong formulas. We can imagine that the alchemist gradually learned the six formulas in the book through years of apprenticeship in an alchemy shop. They are part of the character's history.

On the other hand, if the alchemist's tools are destroyed, the character can buy an identical set in the next town. That makes it believable that they were simply purchased.

Likewise, shops seldom sell giant-sized swords, so the Giant-Instinct barbarian gets the oversized sword as part of the instinct. Thaumaturges' implements are not simply chalices or mirrors; rather, they are specific items that represent the customized magic of the thaumaturge, so they are part of the class rather than purchased separately.


I just realize: A Wizard can only use their own spellbook, they can't grab someone else's. So it has to be part of the character or you're just screwed.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
I just realize: A Wizard can only use their own spellbook, they can't grab someone else's. So it has to be part of the character or you're just screwed.

I agree with your premise about starting equipment, but I'll point out the following action:

Borrow an Arcane Spell (Player Core pg. 234 2.0)


Captain Zoom wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
I just realize: A Wizard can only use their own spellbook, they can't grab someone else's. So it has to be part of the character or you're just screwed.

I agree with your premise about starting equipment, but I'll point out the following action:

Borrow an Arcane Spell (Player Core pg. 234 2.0)

I'm not so sure that works. The text about the wizard spellbook follows as
Quote:
You start with a spellbook worth 10 sp or less, which you receive for free and must study each day to prepare your spells.

But yeah.. I can see it being read as you only need any arcane spellbook but only yours is guaranteed, with the pain of knowing that each failed roll is a spell you cannot prepare until the day after.

They can't attempt to copy the spells into their new book for free either like the Witch's Paper Shredder does.


NorrKnekten wrote:
They can't attempt to copy the spells into their new book for free either like the Witch's Paper Shredder does.

Witch can not copy spellbook spells for free either. The familiar can only consume scrolls to learn the spell from.

Quote:
It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a written version of that spell over the course of 1 hour. This can be a scroll of that spell, or you can prepare a written version using the Learn a Spell exploration activity.

To acquire spells from a spellbook, the Learn a Spell activity is still required in order to create uncastable special scrolls that can then be given to the Familiar.


Eoran wrote:
NorrKnekten wrote:
They can't attempt to copy the spells into their new book for free either like the Witch's Paper Shredder does.

Witch can not copy spellbook spells for free either. The familiar can only consume scrolls to learn the spell from.

Quote:
It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a written version of that spell over the course of 1 hour. This can be a scroll of that spell, or you can prepare a written version using the Learn a Spell exploration activity.
To acquire spells from a spellbook, the Learn a Spell activity is still required in order to create uncastable special scrolls that can then be given to the Familiar.

The old pre-master text made that clear yes, But it was changed in remaster. Heres the old text.

Quote:
It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a scroll of that spell in a process that takes 1 hour. You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a special written version of a spell, which your familiar can consume as if it were a scroll.

Not going to argue grammar or semantics that differ between the two texts but Paizo could've been more concise with less words if they just kept the "Physically consume a scroll of that spell" or change the "Can be" to "Must be"

I recall this being a previous errata suggestion but nothing came of it. Actually.. let me post it to the new Errata Suggestions Thread


NorrKnekten wrote:
Eoran wrote:
Quote:
It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a written version of that spell over the course of 1 hour. This can be a scroll of that spell, or you can prepare a written version using the Learn a Spell exploration activity.
To acquire spells from a spellbook, the Learn a Spell activity is still required in order to create uncastable special scrolls that can then be given to the Familiar.

The old pre-master text made that clear yes, But it was changed in remaster. Heres the old text.

Quote:
It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a scroll of that spell in a process that takes 1 hour. You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a special written version of a spell, which your familiar can consume as if it were a scroll.
Not going to argue grammar or semantics that differ between the two texts but Paizo could've been more concise with less words if they just kept the "Physically consume a scroll of that spell" or change the "Can be" to "Must be"

Please show where is the difference. I don't see it at all, nothing has changed. What's here to make erratum for?


Errenor wrote:
NorrKnekten wrote:
Please show where is the difference. I don't see it at all, nothing has changed. What's here to make erratum for?
APG Witch/Familiar wrote:
Your familiar can learn new spells independently of your patron. It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a scroll of that spell in a process that takes 1 hour. You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a special written version of a spell, which your familiar can consume as if it were a scroll.
Player Core Witch/Familiar wrote:
Your familiar can learn new spells independently of your patron. It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a written version of that spell over the course of 1 hour. This can be a scroll of that spell, or you can prepare a written version using the Learn a Spell exploration activity.

There we go, Straight from Nethys and the differences bolded


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NorrKnekten wrote:
Errenor wrote:
NorrKnekten wrote:
Please show where is the difference. I don't see it at all, nothing has changed. What's here to make erratum for?
APG Witch/Familiar wrote:
Your familiar can learn new spells independently of your patron. It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a scroll of that spell in a process that takes 1 hour. You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a special written version of a spell, which your familiar can consume as if it were a scroll.
Player Core Witch/Familiar wrote:
Your familiar can learn new spells independently of your patron. It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a written version of that spell over the course of 1 hour. This can be a scroll of that spell, or you can prepare a written version using the Learn a Spell exploration activity.
There we go, Straight from Nethys and the differences bolded

You should have continued boldind (fixed it for you):

"This requires (not examples, straight up requirements): A Scroll or a written version prepared via Learn a spell."

They don't get to simply eat a spellbook and learn the spell, it requires the specific activity listed, which costs the same regardless if you're a wizard or a witch.


To me it does not read as a requirement, Rather setting expectation of what written versions of spells are and how to create them. Similar to how Wizards aren't told they can study their spellbook to prepare spells. They must study. But I will yield on that. Tell me two things though.

Is the new text more concise and clear than the previous? And would you rather keep the old wording where it specifies a scroll instead of written version?

Some adventure paths have 'Academic' written versions of spells for the players to find. Spellbook users can copy these over for free. Does this apply to the witch aswell? I am fully on board on the reason for spellbooks being offlimits being that they are written om wizard PHD
handwriting needing to be translated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NorrKnekten wrote:

To me it does not read as a requirement, Rather setting expectation of what written versions of spells are and how to create them. Similar to how Wizards aren't told they can study their spellbook to prepare spells. They must study. But I will yield on that. Tell me two things though.

Is the new text more concise and clear than the previous? And would you rather keep the old wording where it specifies a scroll instead of written version?

Some adventure paths have 'Academic' written versions of spells for the players to find. Spellbook users can copy these over for free. Does this apply to the witch aswell? I am fully on board on the reason for spellbooks being offlimits being that they are written om wizard PHD
handwriting needing to be translated.

What do you mean "it does not read as requirement"?

It straight up says "This needs this or that".

It couldn't be clearer:

"It can learn a spell by physically consuming a written version. This can be this or that."

It literally is as simplified as they could say it.

p.s.
For your second question. The only way the witch can teach it new spells (apart from the free ones) is Scrolls or the Activity. If those Adventure paths alter the Activity, then yes, because you are literally using said Activity. If not, tough luck for the Witch.


What I mean is exactly that, it does not suggest itself as a requirement when read.

Let me clarify my issues.

First; The decision of replacing the word "Scroll" with "Written version"

This removes the immediate reference that it is specifically is magical Scrolls that needs to be consumed. Without a definition of what a "written version" is in this context it simply is way to easy to assume that all written down spells are viable including non-magical text.

The result of this is that the second paragraph, that previously only mentioned the ability to provide said scroll trough Learn a Spell, needs to make the distinction of what works and what doesn't. Which is where my other issue comes.

Second;
It does this trough what is known as 'Soft Affirmation' when it is using "This can be". Those three words changes what needs to be used with 'Strong Affirmation' into something that suggests this as an optional route.

Its not hard to imagine the text with Strong affirmation either.

Quote:

"..This needs to be a Scroll, or text you created from the Learn a Spell activity

"..This is either a Scroll, or piece of writing you prepare with the Learn a Spell activity"

"..This must be a scroll, or text you supply trough the Learn a Spell activity"

"..It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by consuming a scroll containing the spell over the course of 1 hour, You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a written version that can be consumed as a scroll."

You can pick these issues appart if you want, but we have gone much to far from the original post,

What I learned is that the next time I have a Prison Break campaign opener I will use the end of Session 0, or Session 1 to let players use downtime to prepare their escape trough preparing improv spellbooks/formula books on their clothing, Collect flasks, cans and mason jars as an alchemist toolkit. and let players smuggle out tools to use as weapons.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Alchemists don't come with alchemist's toolkits? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.