I'm currently starting a table where the DM doesn't have the new books and wants to play pre-remaster, and I realized how much some classes have changed since then. I wanted to do a swashbuckler, then remembered that your skills didn't autoscale, that you had to succeed to get panache and that some skills (like one for all) only gave panache on a very hard check.
Basically, now that I've tasted the remaster, I find the pre-remaster one unplayable, to the point where I reflavored a rogue so as not to tear my hair down.
So it got me thinking: what classes got the biggest buffs in your opinion ? What is your top 3 ?
I'd go with:
- Swashbuckler (obviously): gone from nigh-unplayable to fun and engaging
- Cleric: between free font and alignment damage now hitting everybody, they went from good to great (and some great warpriest support and feats as well).
- Oracle: Some people dislike the new flavor and some mysteries got gutted, but going from 3-slot to 4-slot with an almost-extra font of focus point, plus the aforementioned huge buff to divine list, made them a powerhouse.
Honorable mentions:
- Barbarian got free rage and no AC penalty, that's great.
- Investigator got basically free devise stratagem, that's awesome but puts it from garbage to meh
- Witch got an interesting mechanics with her familiar but it didn't go far enough, apart from a few busted builds (hello resentment my old friend).
Yeah, but...
- Sorcerer got some great buffs through blood potencies, and his bonus to damage/heal cannot be poachable anymore, but the loss of crossblooded evolution really hurts.
- Alchemist got buffed or nerfed depending on your group's playstyle
Nothing or nerfed:
- Rogue got basically nothing but they were already awesome
- Same with bard, little to nothing but they didn't need it.
- Same with monk.
- Champion got basically nothing mechanics-wise, although the change in alignments has a real impact.
- Druid was already the bottom of the barrel and got basically nothing, firmly putting it as one of the worst casters, alongside with...
- Wizard, who got nothing as well apart from a dubious school refont.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think its funny that when I remember that back then I used to argue the swashbuckler sucked and that it needed a rework ASAP most people didn't agree with me, yet right now everyone agrees that the swashbuckler was rough before so the buff made sense. I feel that sometimes people don't want to believe that "the company that makes this game I really like couldn't have released a bad product" so they conform themselves by thinking that the design is intentional or that they are missing something. PF2e pre-remaster is the living proof that, while the system was certainly really good and IMO leagues better than its predecesor, it had the potential to be so much better than it was. For us players, the remaster was a blessing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its funny that when I remember that back then I used to argue the swashbuckler sucked and that it needed a rework ASAP most people didn't agree with me, yet right now everyone agrees that the swashbuckler was rough before so the buff made sense. I feel that sometimes people don't want to believe that "the company that makes this game I really like couldn't have released a bad product" so they conform themselves by thinking that the design is intentional or that they are missing something. PF2e pre-remaster is the living proof that, while the system was certainly really good and IMO leagues better than its predecesor, it had the potential to be so much better than it was. For us players, the remaster was a blessing.
I totally agree with you - and for what it's worth, I posted at release how weak I thought the original swashbuckler was ( https://paizo.com/threads/rzs434dw?Is-the-rogue-a-better-swashbuckler-than- the#19 ).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its funny that when I remember that back then I used to argue the swashbuckler sucked and that it needed a rework ASAP most people didn't agree with me,
I'm not sure if you would count me in that group of people arguing against you that pre-Remaster Swashbuckler needed a rework. But I was pretty close.
I didn't think that APG Swashbuckler was bad. It was a bit fiddly. It worked fine in standard encounters, but struggled in boss battles because of how difficult it was to get panache.
Most of what people complained about pre-Remaster was the action usage. Having to spend an action each round gaining panache in order to use their finishers. And, well... that hasn't changed. It has just become nearly guaranteed that you gain panache for the action cost (even if only temporarily) rather than having a decent chance of spending the action and getting nothing.
One of the things I argued about and got shouted down for was that even pre-Remaster, the rules didn't say that you had to affect your target with the action you use to gain panache with - you just had to succeed at the check for it . People used the Battledancer note and interpreted that to be an override of the rule for gaining panache, rather than an override rule for how many targets you compare your check results to. The note in the Bravado trait regarding a creature's immunity clears that up nicely.
So IMO the Swashbuckler changes from Remaster are less of a complete rework and more of a clarification of something that people were reading wrong to begin with and a tweak to let them be more reliable in boss fights.
The impact of those changes is pretty huge. But the actual changes made were rather minor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oracle, Rogue, and Barbarian are the big winners for me (flavor issues with the Oracle aside). You say rogues got nothing but the qol and save improvements are huge wins for a class that was already so good.
Swashbuckler and Alchemist honorable mentions for some really cool changes but still a couple problem points.
Investigator and Witch to me feel like unfortunate misses. Clear improvements, but missing just enough that it doesn't feel satisfying. The investigator still feels too conservative and too GM dependent and the Witch feels too variable and imo the changes missed some of the real pain points.
Wizard feels like the clear loser. The remake had a cool idea, but did as little as possible with it such that in some ways the class actually got worse.
Dishonorable mention to the Ranger, which while not bad before and technically the recipient of a few QoL buffs ultimately feels so left behind by the remaster and the game in general I don't even see people talk about it.
... I think this thread is the first time I've ever heard someone call Druids bottom of the barrel ngl.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about the biggest buffed, but the biggest nerfed was familiars gaining absolutely nothing and losing the ability to use trained-only actions of skills that they have Skilled ability for.
When I said "the people that disagreed with me" I wasn't refering to anyone in particular here. That was like...2 years ago or more I believe? I don't really remember who they were. I do remember Deriven agreed with me though, but I usually agree with Deriven in most balance-related things anyways.
A bit more on topic; I'm the only one that thinks its really weird some classes that were already in a fantastic spot like the rogue or barbarian got buffs while other classes got pretty much nothing? The wizard is an example of a class that was fine-ish pre-remaster but that somehow was nerfed on remaster. Not massively nerfed like some people think, but nerfed nonetheless. The same with outwit ranger that probably was my °1 pick for a rework in the remaster but it ended up exactly the same. I also expected a bit more for clerics, but I'm probably the only one that doesn't like them much here.
When I said "the people that disagreed with me" I wasn't refering to anyone in particular here. That was like...2 years ago or more I believe? I don't really remember who they were.
Yeah. And to be clear, I'm not offended that we ended up on the opposite side of a debate. I end up on the opposing side of a lot of people fairly regularly. It certainly isn't the first time and it very likely won't be the last.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short:
Rogues got many buffs it didn't need, got a broken ability that contradicts the entire class system design. Barbarians got some major improvements when the class was already great at was designed to do.
Wizards got shafted directly and Monks were shafted indirectly (they remained static while everyone else improved).
|
I mean, Wizards getting nerfed (to what degree is debatable outside of the general consensus that they were definitely nerfed) was more like a sad collateral damage from switching from OGL to ORC. With schools going from {b]general classification of magic spells[/b] to the ACTUAL school of wizardry you attended, alongside Paizo probably rushing it, and thus the feature being weaker, does suck though.
*Looks up the Outwit Edge... then looks at the other two edges* Okay, yeah, Outwit feels a little less useful compared to Flurry or Precision.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty much in agreement for the most part.
Most Improved:
Swashbuckler: Properly fixed. Panache generation was the biggest problem and now it's easy and the class works.
Cleric: Much better feats. Removed Charisma need to allow better stat focus. Spirit blasts everything with additional benefits if sanctified.
Oracle: Lost uniqueness for much more power and a much better play experience for most mysteries. The focus spells are still a very mixed bag with some so terrible as to be unplayable and a few of the curses are unplayable or a challenge for those that enjoy putting themselves at a disadvantage, but they're easy to avoid. The curse feats stack nicely.
Improved but still just ok
Witch: Lots of improved feats. Still too short a range and hexes too weak to really be desirable. They still feel sort of weak. Hexes should be much stronger, especially the focus point hexes. Familiars have to be too close where you don't want them to use their abilities. I don't know why the Paizo designers think putting your familiar with 15 feet of an enemy is something you would want to do. They are way too easy to kill.
Investigator: Much easier to designate target of investigation for free action Devise a Stratagem. Some feats improved or lowered in level. In the right campaign, great class. In most campaigns, meh as Blue Frog said.
Surprise Improvements
Barbarian: Free action range with no limitation on resting a minute. Removal of AC penalty.
Rogue: Gang up much better. All three saves critical success on a success. Class didn't need improvements, but someone at Paizo loves the rogue.
Monk: Embrace Nothingness is a crazy strong Qi spell.
Sorcerer: Some better bloodline feats and sole owner of Sorcerous Potency, but cross-blooded not as good as it used to be. Most bloodline effects still pretty meh or trash. Main great addition was Explosion of Power, though Reflect Harm looks interesting in the right circumstances.
Surprisingly made worse
Wizard: I didn't think they could make the class feel worse, but they did. I'm of the opinion only the wizard diehards can sell this remaster wizard as better or still good. To me they look more terrible and overshadowed by the sorcerer and now the oracle and cleric are better blasters with far better class options, so more competition for their role.
I think they need to scrap the old square paradigm of the PF1 wizard with spell slots being tied to schools and completely rebuild the wizard. They keep trying to fit that square into round holes with the new PF2 game structure making the wizard a class only the diehard wizard players keep trying to make better than other caster classes they compete for spots against. About the only thing positive about the wizard is they have the best level 20 caster feats if you make it that far. If that's the reason they made 1 to 19 painful for the wizard, I'd take less powerful level 20 feats I'll use for a short time to have a better play experience 1 to 19 that might take months to years.
Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll. Alchemist is too limited with no strong builds. It's not fun to me or my group. I had one player try one as he loves the alchemist concept, but he felt too weak to play one again. They don't have very satisfying builds or class powers when in groups next to classes do much more powerful and cooler stuff. You can't watch classes like the rogue and fighter wreck stuff barely trying while you're working way too hard to do half of what they do for damage or effectiveness.
I find the druid more powerful than Blue Frog. Main problem with the druid is it is narrowband power. Storm druid with Untamed Form is the only druid with noticeable power. Animal druid is ok in first 10 levels or so when the companion is decent. Any other druid is pretty trash. Untamed Form or companion druid were the reason druids were so powerful in PF1. I think it translated what druid players want pretty well to PF2 though past level 10 the companion needs to be stronger for less of a feat investment.
I'd sure like some clearer rules for what parts of an item work with Untamed Form too. I think the energy runes on handwraps should work for forms but I'm not sure if they do. I think they should be able to cast in Untamed Form that can speak and manipulate, but I think all casters should be able to do this.
That is what I can recall off the top of my head. I already made house rules to improve the wizard as no one wanted to play it the way Paizo designed it. It was too weak and pathetic as designed and more so in the Remaster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my list would be...
Most impactful positive changes (in no particular order):
Alchemist - renewable Versatile Vials so that Bomber isn't a trap option at low level by causing the character to run out of Reagents after two fights.
Witch - Actually gaining the best in print familiar as well as some class feats that are pretty nice.
Oracle (as long as you were playing a traditional spellcasting Oracle) - Cursebound abilities becoming another pool of resources to use in addition to focus spells which no longer progress your curse when cast.
Barbarian - Dropping the AC penalty to Rage, Free action Rage at the start of combat, and allowing back-to-back Rage.
Investigator - More permissive guidance on how to allow the free action Devise a Strategem.
Swashbuckler - Gaining Panache on a failed check, more actions and better specified (by using the Bravado trait) to gain Panache with, and clarity that you can gain Panache even if the action doesn't cause any effect on the target.
Buffed strangely:
Magus - Not so much buffed, but changed quite a bit for compatibility reasons.
Rogue - Buffed, certainly. Arguable how impactful that is. Definitely strange buffs though.
Left mostly alone as far as power level goes or implicitly nerfed:
Monk - Dishonorable mention for not having a Special rule in Qi Spells allowing you to take it multiple times to get multiple different Rank 1 focus spells.
Psychic - Technically not touched at all, but now every focus spell caster can do their previously special thing and refocus all of their focus points back.
Other classes not mentioned elsewhere in my list.
Nerfed because reasons:
Oracle (if you wanted to color outside the lines of a standard spellcaster) - Losing the risk/reward of the curse. Losing the passive benefits of the curse.
Wizard - Much more restrictive on what spells can be put into their bonus 4th spell slot. Very possible to have a low Rank spell slot that can only be filled with a spell that is not worth using at that low Rank (like a damage dealing spell that needs to be heightened to be effective).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Wizards getting nerfed (to what degree is debatable outside of the general consensus that they were definitely nerfed) was more like a sad collateral damage from switching from OGL to ORC. With schools going from {b]general classification of magic spells[/b] to the ACTUAL school of wizardry you attended, alongside Paizo probably rushing it, and thus the feature being weaker, does suck though.
This will sound mean, but it wasn’t “collateral damage”, it was sheer lack of effort to render a good product.
The reasons for this lack of effort could be varied, and entirely reasonable, understandable and agreeable in and of themselves, but the OGL changes didn’t force Paizo to make Wizards worse.
But when you look at some of the changes other classes got, it’s clear there was care put in to address specific issues or to aid specific conceptual elements.
They just didn’t do this with the Wizard. Not really.
Part of me wonders if this is why we are seeing so many Class archetypes for the Wizard. They know the fumbled the core features, so they have to fully replace them anytime they do want to give the class anything interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Wizards getting nerfed (to what degree is debatable outside of the general consensus that they were definitely nerfed) was more like a sad collateral damage from switching from OGL to ORC. With schools going from {b]general classification of magic spells[/b] to the ACTUAL school of wizardry you attended, alongside Paizo probably rushing it, and thus the feature being weaker, does suck though.This will sound mean, but it wasn’t “collateral damage”, it was sheer lack of effort to render a good product.
The reasons for this lack of effort could be varied, and entirely reasonable, understandable and agreeable in and of themselves, but the OGL changes didn’t force Paizo to make Wizards worse.
But when you look at some of the changes other classes got, it’s clear there was care put in to address specific issues or to aid specific conceptual elements.
They just didn’t do this with the Wizard. Not really.
Part of me wonders if this is why we are seeing so many Class archetypes for the Wizard. They know the fumbled the core features, so they have to fully replace them anytime they do want to give the class anything interesting.
The question is why are they so intent on keeping this wizard paradigm from past editions of D&D and PF1 that didn't acclimate to PF2 very well? Even 5E threw out schools having spell slots and did a complete redesign that fit a simpler game with reduced power that maintained a unique, powerful wizard.
I can't help but wonder if someone with influence in the design team refuses to get rid of wizard design with spell slots and abilities that no longer do the job in PF2.
You would think they would know that the reason the wizard of old was so powerful was all the spell slots, a powerful arcane list with nearly every great spell available, and the ability to change out spells as you go and powerful, customizable metamagic and feats. These are all gone and the wizard school class features with limited slot were never what made the wizard powerful or interesting. Now they kept that uninteresting parts of the wizard and got rid of all the feats and the spell list that made the wizard the wizard.
Now we're seeing what we would have seen had they done this in past editions: really boring, bad class features that were overlooked because of the power of the wizard spell list and metamagic feats.
Even when playing 3E and PF1, the schools were never where the power or interesting features were for wizards. Most chose universalist to access the powerful wizard spell list completely and the metamagic feats. Then boosted whatever school they wanted with Spell Focus and the like feats.
Now we're stuck with the parts of the wizard in curriculums (formerly known as schools) that weren't that interesting to start with. That stuff is showing up as bad in PF2 because it's all wizards got now when they had so much before. The wizard spell list alone was magnificent and the arcane list is shared and is arguably the least versatile in terms of overall roles of all the spell lists. The wizard/sorc list used to be the most versatile and powerful spell list. The sorc always had better class features, but the wizards ability to change spells combined with the wiz/sorc spell list made them what they were.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Champions got Expand Aura at lvl 6 with expanded benefits later on, Defensive Advance and you can play their causes for a lot more deities than before. I think they came out very well, although their base chassis already was strong pre-Remaster.
Swashbucklers got really functional with the Remaster and are one of my favorite classes in 2E. Which is why I wrote a guide for them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.
I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.
But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?
Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.
But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?
Alchemist used to be able to decide how to split their resources between prepared versus spontaneous alchemy. You could make absurd numbers of daily items as the levels went up, and post L10-ish running out was not a concern. Running out of bombs as a low L alch was basically a universal experience and reality check to make sure you brought a weapon. I personally bought a back stock of R-1 bombs that had good debuffs, because that's what Quick Bomber hinted at, and I was already carrying bomb-fuel for the alch xbow.
.
Aside from the removal of *player chosen* daily |vs| spontaneous, another horrible change was the removal of Perpetual Items.
This was a chassis ability that gave all Alchs infinite spontaneous items a full tier / -5 ish levels behind in their specialty.
This was a big deal; Bombers could always have a -1 dmg die Skunk bomb to infuse with Additives as a fallback, etc. Even Chirurgeons had unique options like Contagion Metabolizers, which used to enable infinite purging of allies and NPCs, as a base chassis thing. My Abm Vlts Chir used a feat to gain the off-specialty infinite Skunks, which was *amazing,* and has been deleted from the system.
The replacement "infinite" of the freebie vials are horrendous in comparison. Chirurgeon's is an actual joke of an ability and feat line. Healing 2d6 + 0 for 2A at level 11 is a joke of a combat option.
To use the new vials to purge diseases is a 3 feat chain. A three feat chain. You can archetype dip and break the lockout in the same number of feats needed to give the crappy vials a niche utility function. It's insane that a dev thought the chir feats were valid comparisons against archetypes.
These kinds of feats are even worth-less from the opposite perspective. The addition of recharging VVials means you can utility purge those conditions out of combat freely anyways. No need to either plan ahead nor use a precious spontaneous i.reagent. Which leaves these feats with the tiniest possible use of in-combat purging, but only when you don't want to spend real VVials on the formula consumables. This feat line a waste of page space that was really needed for other possibilities.
They even nerfed random feats like Healing Bomb for no comprehensible reason, reducing the degree of success to require a hit upon ally AC to get the full heal. With a healing flask that has +0 to hit, on a chassis with lagging strike accuracy.
Even the Alchemist Goggles got nerfed*, trading away +x to hit with bombs (so your low R bombs wouldn't lag accuracy) in exchange for... +1/2/3 damage to the splash, but only when you miss? Who the crap asked for that?!
Even Fumbus would be ashamed at Paizo for cutting that critical lifeline needed for using low R bombs. Now, the only way to keep the accuracy up is via Quicksilver (or asking your GM to use the old version, like I did).
.
To be clear, this is not coming from a place of on-paper theorizing. I ran an old Alchemist through Gatewalkers, and delayed upgrading to the remaster to the start of Stolen Fate. I stuck it out with that PC just hit L20 with my Alchemist/Witch.
I do not plan on ever playing another Alch primary PC again. All my passion for the class is gone. They are miserable to play, needing to burn 2 or 3 of their vials per turn to have any significant combat impact.
You do that kind of vial burn 2 or 3 times, and the entire class chassis becomes dead weight.
Especially at high level, when everyone's flying at high speed, being stuck with touch range elixirs is miserable as hell.
And to be frank, if I cared about combat performance over thematic/fun play, my L20 would be spamming Bola Shot and maybe using the Alchemist chassis once per combat.
With high level wands at play, I already do way more spellcasting than alchemy. If I'm already stuck at 30ft range thanks to bombs and touch elixirs, R6 Slow is still absurdly better than the Alch's bag of tricks >95% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.
But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?
Previously, their daily resources scaled based on int AND level, now it's just Int. Also, you could use a reagent to do a batch of two items, three from your field.
So a level 10 bomber with 20 int had 15 reagents every day, and could for instance
- Keep 5 open for quick alchemy
- Use 5 to get 10 daily items to use and give freely
- Use 5 to get 15 bombs to use throughout the day.
In comparison, a remastered level 10 alchemist with 20 int has:
- 9 daily items (that's it, no special bonus)
- 7 versatile vials (2 regen every fight, but limited to 10mn.
So if you're playing in a party where you do a lot of 10mn breaks, you'll be swimming in versatile vials - though you'll still have less versatility in long-term buffs.
If you're in a party with no or few breaks, you're really underwhelming in comparison to premaster.
Alchemist is a bit like the warlock of PF2, they thrive on short rests.
Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.
But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?
I don't think this is the case. I think PF2 can be played either way, which is why we do it.
It does hurt certain classes though. If PF2 required 10 minute rests to make it work, not sure we would have switched to it.
PF2 seems to have built this system that can play like old D&D where you keep going as long as you can with good resource management and this new way 4E and 5E pushed where you take these short rests to regain abilities.
So far it seems to support both groups with some classes being better suited to either playstyle. Martials can go a long time, especially now that the barb can rage at will. Casters have a mix of resources.
Classes really strongly built around those 10 minute rests like the alchemist and psychic have some problems.
The new oracle can go a lot too since the curse is a separate resource from the focus points so you can ration both of them to keep up.
I find the PF2 real friendly to multiple playstyles. Not sure how they managed that type of design supporting old and new playstyles, but they did it for most classes, especially the core classes.
I'm hoping if they remaster the psychic, they hit the sweet spot of making it good for both playstyles like they did the remaster oracle.
Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.
But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?
Alchemist used to be able to decide how to split their resources between prepared versus spontaneous alchemy. You could make absurd numbers of daily items as the levels went up, and post L10-ish running out was not a concern. Running out of bombs as a low L alch was basically a universal experience and reality check to make sure you brought a weapon. I personally bought a back stock of R-1 bombs that had good debuffs, because that's what Quick Bomber hinted at, and I was already carrying bomb-fuel for the alch xbow.
.
Aside from the removal of *player chosen* daily |vs| spontaneous, another horrible change was the removal of Perpetual Items.
This was a chassis ability that gave all Alchs infinite spontaneous items a full tier / -5 ish levels behind in their specialty.This was a big deal; Bombers could always have a -1 dmg die Skunk bomb to infuse with Additives as a fallback, etc. Even Chirurgeons had unique options like Contagion Metabolizers, which used to enable infinite purging of allies and NPCs, as a base chassis thing. My Abm Vlts Chir used a feat to gain the off-specialty infinite Skunks, which was *amazing,* and has been deleted from the system.
The replacement "infinite" of the freebie vials are horrendous in comparison. Chirurgeon's is an actual joke of an ability and feat line. Healing 2d6 + 0 for 2A at level 11 is a joke of a combat option.
To use the new vials to purge diseases...
I have to agree with Trip on this one.
Premaster Alchemist at high level did not have resource problems. It was mostly a low level problem. They were churning out tons of stuff at high level for the group. Perpetual items kept them going very nicely at high level for a weaker item to use against weaker enemies.
This remaster alchemist is clunky and a pain to track on top of having far more limited sustain limiting its ability to keep up with other classes.
I think the new vial system did not make the alchemist better. I may change it to regenerate vials every minute without refocusing. I do not think the alchemist does powerful enough stuff to warrant limiting them too much. They are especially short range as well compared to casters that can destroy entire groups from hundreds of feet away if you set up for it or bow users which can do often better damage from much farther away.
I feel like they took the alchemist in a bad direction for playability. That's just my opinion influenced by my group's playstyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the in depth replies, everyone! I really don't understand the Alchemist's playstyle and this helps a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist is a bit like the warlock of PF2, they thrive on short rests.
You say that like it isn't true for practically every other class too.
Oracle being another standout worth mentioning specifically. If you don't have plenty of 10 minute rests after a fight you are going into the next fight with high cursebound level and low on focus points.
All focus point casters are going to thrive on short rests.
All martial classes are going to thrive on short rests to regain their HP.
Paizo hates on Wizards because Wizards tried to wreck them with the OGL fiasco. It's just more identity distancing. They'd probably do away with it entirely if they could.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had the opposite experience to yours.
The legacy alchemist was quite frustrating for me. At low levels, it lacked reagents, and at high levels, it lacked accuracy and damage with perpetual infusions.
Furthermore, many of the feats that relied on fast alchemy took a long time to use. For much of the game, I ended up having to rely almost entirely on advanced alchemy to have enough items to use throughout the day, plus a backup weapon to save bombs.
In the remastered alchemist, things have improved significantly. At least for the bomber. I no longer needed a backup weapon, quick alchemy, and the main mechanic. Now with Versatile Vials, the class became super efficient at exploiting weaknesses. Now I have a great reason to gather as many formulas as possible since there's no longer the pressure to prepare everything in advance to have enough items to last the whole day.
At higher levels, having splash damage equal to twice my Intelligence is quite strong and efficient, especially against creatures with weaknesses (you can easily activate the weakness with all your actions).
It's a class where I easily have “tools” for everything due to the sheer number of formulas I've accumulated. It's far from being a great all-around DPR, and I don't expect it to be given all the versatility the class now possesses. Furthermore, it's also a great debuffer thanks to things like the Skunk Bomb, and it's become a much more interesting class to play, especially against strong enemies with weaknesses.
What still disappointing IMO are its other subclasses that is not so good as bomber.
Alchemist is a bit like the warlock of PF2, they thrive on short rests.You say that like it isn't true for practically every other class too.
Oracle being another standout worth mentioning specifically. If you don't have plenty of 10 minute rests after a fight you are going into the next fight with high cursebound level and low on focus points.
All focus point casters are going to thrive on short rests.
All martial classes are going to thrive on short rests to regain their HP.
It's wild that when someone rightly points out that new Alch is more dependent upon their 10 min resource than any other class, someone is ready to jump up and argue against it.
.
The Alchemist cantrip equivalent are the joke q-VVials. You cannot even put Additives in these.
Their slot equivalent daily items do not have the quantity to compare against spell slots. (imagine if all spellcasters became wave casters and lost their low R slots)
Alchemist has 0 scroll nor wand comparison to help stretch their class actions.
A L11 junk bomb is 275gp; a L11, R6 scroll (of Slow, perhaps) is 300gp. Single bomb throw vs 10-foe crazy debuff.
They lack even permanent equipment like grimoires or specialty robes to extend their alchemy. It's just the single Haversack, which taxes combat actions.
.
All this means that, yes, the entire class's combat actions ride upon their recharging VVials waaaay more than any other class' 10 min resource.
It is good to get some direct Bomber experience chiming in on this.
The remaster certainly was built around Bombers, and it's good to hear that some people do find it to be an improvement.For me, they buffed the archetype Alch so much while neutering the chassis-only perks, that I genuinely think I'll never touch Alch again. If I ever get the urge, I will instead only dip into the archetype with other PCs. It really is that bad of a value proposition, imo.
Even Bomber lost most reason to keep that as your chassis over dipping.
As mad as it may be, Paizo has published Firework Tech if one *really* wants to get recharging VVials for bombs on a Fighter/Investigator/etc. A 3 feat chain for recharging VVs on any PC is certainly a better investment than most in class Alch feat chains, lol.
I'd argue that only Toxicologist really has to remain a main-Alch, and godspeed to the few brave souls playing that subclass.
I'm just not sure the 10m thing is really a problem. Deriven plays the game in a very specific way, so it's somewhat inevitable that the end result radically alters the game balance. Deriven's complained about other classes that rely heavily on recharging abilities too. It's mostly a table thing. It feels kind of like complaining that sorcerers are bad because I set my campaign in a dead magic zone.
The remaster alchemist is undeniably pretty good at what it does, though the permabuffer and mutagenist definitely got off a bit worse with the changes. Still clearly one of the better remaster jobs, and much less of a problematic mess than something like the Oracle.
4/4 Paizo APs I've played in have battle maps / ~dungeons where there are many encounters separated by small distances.
(and single fight ambushes / days do not allow any recharging resources to be relevant).
The "table variance" you speak of is imo if the players want to maintain some amount of ludo-narrative cohesion / in-lore logic, or if the table wishes to treat an adventure like a video game where other creatures lack functioning brains.
It's completely nonsense that a party of adventurers would storm a fort, clear 2-3 rooms, then sit on their asses for a 10 min break in hostile territory. While some % of tables play that way, it's clearly outside any attempt at (?)sensible role play(?) or however that should be phrased.
.
The old Alchemist was designed with the 10 min pause in mind, as a sometimes luxury, not an "of course."
(And I'm 99% sure this is why new Alch is the only class that does not need to sit and Refocus for its recharge. Paizo is counting on some passive 10-min regen happening without the party taking breaks.)
There are a lot of 1 hr and 10 min buffs, but of course the 1-min items are much more potent. The value proposition only really makes sense if the party will be pressing forward with only ~1 min pauses between rooms. If a 10-min buff only lasts a single fight due to breaks, it'll likely never get used by a new Alch.
1 min buffs like Numbing only provide value during combat rounds, putting a cap on the value of the i.reagent / VV spend, but all 10 min buffs can easily last 3 fights when maintaining an RP-appropriate pace through the possible trapped halls.
Even when putting a 1-fight only buff like Numbing vs its sibling 1-min Soothing makes more sense when understanding this fort-clearing "style" of play.
Soothing certainly does less during combat, but this is compensated by continuing to heal between combats. Which only really matters if you don't park your butts for 10 min, and instead kick in the next door after only a quick ~60 sec pause to quaff, quick heal, and reload.
Old Alch genuinely did not like frequent 10-min pauses because it would kill all the 10-min buffs, like the mid-level mutagens.
Old Alch often wanted to use those longer duration buff items before the first door kick, like Eagle Eye, so that you could increase their value with a fight-chaining table norm.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "table variance" you speak of is imo if the players want to maintain some amount of ludo-narrative cohesion / in-lore logic, or if the table wishes to treat an adventure like a video game where other creatures lack functioning brains.
It's completely nonsense that a party of adventurers would storm a fort, clear 2-3 rooms, then sit on their asses for a 10 min break in hostile territory. While some % of tables play that way, it's clearly outside any attempt at (?)sensible role play(?) or however that should be phrased.
So your way of playing is the only right way of playing and anyone who plays other ways is doing it wrong.
Thanks for being so invalidating.
So your way of playing is the only right way of playing and anyone who plays other ways is doing it wrong.
Thanks for being so invalidating.
No.
I can explain how the game was clearly designed around around a significant amount of chain-encounters without accusing others of "doing it wrong."
I can even call out that fact that the "mid hostile map 10-min breaks" often only make RP sense if the creatures are brainless, etc, without accusing players of "doing it wrong."
.
If it's more fun for them to play with mid-map 10 min rests, then it is more fun. Maximizing a table's fun is the only priority, the rules and systems exist for that precise goal.
But beyond the RP ~issues, there are also mechanical consequences to doing this. (which might hurt fun)
Such as the balance of alch items being thrown out of whack. 1 hr and 10-min items become nearly worthless compared against the 1-min items.
This "always recharging VVs" style also incentivizes Alch PCs to prebuff before every door kick.
(New Alch prebuffing can genuinely trivialize encounter difficulty, I'm not joking. I had to self-ban Numbing the party before door-kicks because it makes too big a difference)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had the opposite experience to yours.
The legacy alchemist was quite frustrating for me. At low levels, it lacked reagents, and at high levels, it lacked accuracy and damage with perpetual infusions.
Furthermore, many of the feats that relied on fast alchemy took a long time to use. For much of the game, I ended up having to rely almost entirely on advanced alchemy to have enough items to use throughout the day, plus a backup weapon to save bombs.
In the remastered alchemist, things have improved significantly. At least for the bomber. I no longer needed a backup weapon, quick alchemy, and the main mechanic. Now with Versatile Vials, the class became super efficient at exploiting weaknesses. Now I have a great reason to gather as many formulas as possible since there's no longer the pressure to prepare everything in advance to have enough items to last the whole day.
At higher levels, having splash damage equal to twice my Intelligence is quite strong and efficient, especially against creatures with weaknesses (you can easily activate the weakness with all your actions).
It's a class where I easily have “tools” for everything due to the sheer number of formulas I've accumulated. It's far from being a great all-around DPR, and I don't expect it to be given all the versatility the class now possesses. Furthermore, it's also a great debuffer thanks to things like the Skunk Bomb, and it's become a much more interesting class to play, especially against strong enemies with weaknesses.
What still disappointing IMO are its other subclasses that is not so good as bomber.
Chirurgeon can heal fine, but it's strangely limited. Elixirs of Life are very weak healing in early level and Versatile Vial are too limited due to coagulant trait. After the level 11 the things becomes better, but you are clearly worse than almost any other healer option in the game. You still need too many actions to heal less and more limited.
Toxicologist It is better than it was in legacy, your attack proficiency goes up to master now, the poison damage affects creatures immune to poison, and you require one less action to apply it. However, you still need to use too many actions to apply a poison and attack, and that in general needs that enemies fails in saves to worth and many injure poisons were nerfed.
Mutagenist was meh before, and it's a bit less meh now! The game still lacks from many mutagens, you still require too many preparation actions, to the end still weaker than any other martial alternative. The main advantage of flexibility to use a mutagen to adapt to a certain situation still exists for all other subclasses and alchemist archetype, so I see about no reason to play as mutagenist since the very beginning of PF2e.
This more closely mirrors my experience. My son is playing a Bomber Alchemist in Spore War and he's loving it. He's keeping up in damage just fine, and his ability to show up at the start of the day with a pile of long lasting defensive consumables for the party (
He's typically using 1 or 2 vials a round and the rest are versatile vials. It's not Fighter damage, but splash on miss means even that third VV attack has decent odds to do something, and he's got so many damage types he can hit vulnerabilities. When he lands a normal vial with sticky bomb, it can hit real hard (and shred things with weaknesses he can exploit, which is most of them). Hell: he's also our medic via Doctors Visitation, since he can attack from basically anywhere on the combat map and he has the actions (and Assurance) to Battle Medicine when needed.
There's definitely tables where this won't work because our party also has a Bard & Oracle so we REALLY want to refocus, which gives him time to get vials back. If you're going to go dungeon crashing and chain fights, remaster Alchemist is a miss for sure. But people saying that remaster Bomber is bad in general? I sure don't see it at my table.
As for the other 3... well in my AV game, the Alchemist player deliberately went to be the party healer. He still took Bomber, and he's doing the job. That IMO says a lot about the other subclasses and it's not positive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short:
Rogues got many buffs it didn't need, got a broken ability that contradicts the entire class system design. Barbarians got some major improvements when the class was already great at was designed to do.
Wizards got shafted directly and Monks were shafted indirectly (they remained static while everyone else improved).
Disagree on monk. They didn't get bespoke buffs, but they are one of the biggest winners on the general remaster change to refocus rules. Getting to spam Inner Upheaval three times every fight is a great buff to their damage, which is largely what people complain about with them.
Other casters benefit from refocus as well, but their focus spells are weaker than top end spells and generally competing with them for actions, so it's really just a sustainability boost. Inner upheaval just straight up enhances something the monk was already going to do every turn, and now you can do it more combat rounds than not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel a bit conflicted with the question in the OP, because I think it implicitly conflates buffs with improvements. In my opinion, the three most-buffed classes from the remaster are the Cleric, the Oracle, and the Rogue, but out of those three classes, the Oracle's buffs I think came at a detriment to their flavor, the Rogue's major buffs to their saves I don't think necessarily were an improvement (though their updated feats are), and the Cleric, while an excellent class, went from being good to great, when other classes went from okay or terrible to good. The latter, in my opinion, is more worthy of note even if those classes didn't receive the biggest buffs.
In my opinion, the three biggest winners in terms of overall improvements are:
So effectively the APG classes, which were all notoriously dysfunctional prior to the remaster. There's perhaps room for improvement still, but Paizo really did a great job pulling them out of the doldrums in my opinion.
- Swashbuckler (obviously): gone from nigh-unplayable to fun and engaging
Nigh-unplayable is an overstatement. But yes, it came out well.
- Oracle: Some people dislike the new flavor and some mysteries got gutted, but going from 3-slot to 4-slot with an almost-extra font of focus point, plus the aforementioned huge buff to divine list, made them a powerhouse.
"Except for the stuff that got wrecked, it came out great." Several mysteries were basically trashed by the remaster mechanically, aside from all of them having their flavour gutted.
If you're not one of those, then you got buffed a fair bit. If you are one of those... well, you've still got lots of spells?
In terms of how good a job the remaster did, this is the IMO the worst one because of how many characters and builds it broke & how much interesting flavour it removed in favor of "add generic spellcasting power." So it depends on if you're grading this by "does the default build feel stronger now?" or "did the remaster make the the class design better, especially for existing players?" Because that's two very different answers when it comes to Oracle, and that's not true for say Swashbuckler (where there's almost no case where it got worse).
But in general, I find it hard to call a remaster that broke a huge swath of existing characters a success.
The archetype got straight buffed, too. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.
- Alchemist got buffed or nerfed depending on your group's playstyle
Also how much it got buffed is subclass dependent, too. Bomber is by far the easiest one to play well these days. Considering they've tinkered with Alchemist since release (every CRB errata round had Alchemist changes), it's kind of surprising they still haven't gotten some of the subclasses right.
- Rogue got basically nothing but they were already awesome
Rogue got buffs that it didn't need, including Rogues Resilience, which is just straight up baffling to the point that people thought it was an error for months.
Wizard, who got nothing as well apart from a dubious school refont.
This is the other big miss aside from Oracle, but the School of Gates showed us that having strong school options helps a fair bit.
It's pretty clear the OGL hit Wizard hard, and it's also pretty clear it wasn't given a big enough redesign to compensate for that, considering its not like it was an S-tier class to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist: Definitely made worse for our group playstyle. Vials regenerating every 10 minutes is too slow for how we roll.I'm still surprised at how you play. It's not bad, I certainly don't want to imply that, but it certainly goes against the grain of how it's designed to be played.
But how did the Alchemist get worse? Pre-remaster they had an X amount of daily resources, right? They still have those, as well as two pools of regenerating resources. Seems like they only got more resources, right? Am I missing something?
Previously, their daily resources scaled based on int AND level, now it's just Int. Also, you could use a reagent to do a batch of two items, three from your field.
So a level 10 bomber with 20 int had 15 reagents every day, and could for instance
- Keep 5 open for quick alchemy
- Use 5 to get 10 daily items to use and give freely
- Use 5 to get 15 bombs to use throughout the day.In comparison, a remastered level 10 alchemist with 20 int has:
- 9 daily items (that's it, no special bonus)
- 7 versatile vials (2 regen every fight, but limited to 10mn.So if you're playing in a party where you do a lot of 10mn breaks, you'll be swimming in versatile vials - though you'll still have less versatility in long-term buffs.
If you're in a party with no or few breaks, you're really underwhelming in comparison to premaster.
Alchemist is a bit like the warlock of PF2, they thrive on short rests.
One thing that needs to be noted is you don't need to refocus or stop to regen versatile vials. They recharge every 10 minutes. So if you are doing an entire dungeon inside 10 minutes yeah it is a loss but over the course of day in game the alchemist comes out pretty far ahead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks were shafted indirectly (they remained static while everyone else improved).
Monks sort of got a buff.
Their flurry of blows is no longer poachable so ONLY monks get to do it.
Pre Remaster, any unarmed build (and quite a few others) would dip into monk to get flurry.
So, their niche is now THEIR niche.
Also 3 ki strikes/inner upheavals 3x per fight instead of once per fight and a couple floaters. Or whatever other combinations of qi spells you like using. Monk focus spells are legit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, on the other hand, appreciate the 10-min recharge features because I always struggled with daily resources because I'm always thinking "what if I need this later?", which is part of the reason why I don't really like playing casters. I'm also probably on the opposite spectrum of Deriven's table playstyle since we usually handweave the "you need to spend 10 minutes" cooldowns of most features and assume that time somehow happens between the party going from one room of the dungeon to the other, since it kinda makes sense for people to not rush their way in a dangerous, dark place.
I honestly hope for vancian magic to disappear completely in PF3e. An encounter-based casting system similar to focus spells but a bit more in-depth would be much fitting for my tastes personally. I also think caster design feels weirdly constricted in PF2e since most caster-related features and feats usually feel way worse than martial-related ones, which feels weird to me since casters are widely agreed upon to be harder to play than martials. Just looking at Batlecry most of the martial-related archetypes seem way more functional than the necrologist, which is a weird and weaker animal companion that requires sustain for whatever reason.
Alchemist is a bit like the warlock of PF2, they thrive on short rests.You say that like it isn't true for practically every other class too.
Oracle being another standout worth mentioning specifically. If you don't have plenty of 10 minute rests after a fight you are going into the next fight with high cursebound level and low on focus points.
All focus point casters are going to thrive on short rests.
All martial classes are going to thrive on short rests to regain their HP.
Not true. Some classes focus points are little extra things they do, but aren't required. Most casters gain most of their power from spells which become plentiful at high level.
Martials can focus damage and avoid damage more and more at high level. Champions AC becomes ridiculous against anything but bosses. Fighters and barbs have tons of control options to reduce incoming damage.
Oracle curse feats like Foretell Harm only affect a creature or group once . They become immune. So you can slow roll the curse. The oracle focus point spells aren't so great you need them and they have tons of casting. That's the weird thing about the oracle remaster is how much casting they gave them with Gifted Power and Divine Effusion.
Mainly the new alchemist (the old one was fine) and the psychic are really locked into focus points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short:
Rogues got many buffs it didn't need, got a broken ability that contradicts the entire class system design. Barbarians got some major improvements when the class was already great at was designed to do.
Wizards got shafted directly and Monks were shafted indirectly (they remained static while everyone else improved).Disagree on monk. They didn't get bespoke buffs, but they are one of the biggest winners on the general remaster change to refocus rules. Getting to spam Inner Upheaval three times every fight is a great buff to their damage, which is largely what people complain about with them.
Other casters benefit from refocus as well, but their focus spells are weaker than top end spells and generally competing with them for actions, so it's really just a sustainability boost. Inner upheaval just straight up enhances something the monk was already going to do every turn, and now you can do it more combat rounds than not.
I still think Embrace Nothingness was a pretty big monk buff to Qi spells. Read that spell now. It's nuts. Combine that with all a monk gets and they get ridiculous.
I still think Embrace Nothingness was a pretty big monk buff to Qi spells. Read that spell now. It's nuts. Combine that with all a monk gets and they get ridiculous.
I think a lot of people sleep on it because it doesn't come until level 17, but it's an absolutely WTF tier focus spell if your game goes high enough level to get it.
I still think Embrace Nothingness was a pretty big monk buff to Qi spells. Read that spell now. It's nuts. Combine that with all a monk gets and they get ridiculous.I think a lot of people sleep on it because it doesn't come until level 17, but it's an absolutely WTF tier focus spell if your game goes high enough level to get it.
Yep. I just picked it up on my monk after ignoring it pre-remaster. I could not believe how good it was. It's nuts.
When people mention Barb not having an AC penalty to rage anymore, they don't also mention Barbs have low level access to speed and heavy armor. So a +2 AC swing and faster then other heavy armor users, no archetypes needed.
Some classes feasted heavily. Its strange to look at cleric, barb or rogue with all they got and then look at ranger still hanging onto mediocrity.
When people mention Barb not having an AC penalty to rage anymore, they don't also mention Barbs have low level access to speed and heavy armor. So a +2 AC swing and faster then other heavy armor users, no archetypes needed.
Some classes feasted heavily. Its strange to look at cleric, barb or rogue with all they got and then look at ranger still hanging onto mediocrity.
Ranger did not get anything worth mentioning.
Barb did lose Deny Advantage. But I think overall they are better, especially for my group's playstyle.
|
|
I still think Embrace Nothingness was a pretty big monk buff to Qi spells. Read that spell now. It's nuts. Combine that with all a monk gets and they get ridiculous.I think a lot of people sleep on it because it doesn't come until level 17, but it's an absolutely WTF tier focus spell if your game goes high enough level to get it.
I hadn't realized it had changed. Wow, its very, very good now isn't it?
Although I suppose at that level flight is almost universal and invisibility very likely to be bypassed somehow. But even ignoring those it is still very very good.
I still think Embrace Nothingness was a pretty big monk buff to Qi spells. Read that spell now. It's nuts. Combine that with all a monk gets and they get ridiculous.I think a lot of people sleep on it because it doesn't come until level 17, but it's an absolutely WTF tier focus spell if your game goes high enough level to get it.I hadn't realized it had changed. Wow, its very, very good now isn't it?
Although I suppose at that level flight is almost universal and invisibility very likely to be bypassed somehow. But even ignoring those it is still very very good.
A level 9 invisibility effect, so true sight will have a harder time counteracting, but see invis works well enough.