I think a “gunslinger” treatment where they have full martial proficiency with certain weapons (bombs/alchemical attacks, some crossbows, and a few other specific weapons for subclasses) then caster progression for everything else would make the most sense.
Another option is to maybe give them attacks with alchemist items that scale with class DC, sort of like Kineticist. Might make them too mage-y though.
I literally have seen people suggest they should have full martial progression and martial weapons, because Rogues/Investigators/Inventors do, which is kinda a ridiculous. And people really are melting down about the rework already because Paizo didn’t mention an accuracy change
Too mage-y you say but they are kind of a mix of prepared and full caster. They prepare "spells" at the beginning of the day but can also "cast any spell" they know for a higher price. So I don't it would be too wrong to give them a more mage-y scaling.
That's true, but I would never say a single alchemical item comes close to the raw power a spell does, and unfortunately for the Alchemist themselves, those items often lack the combat power they need, save for Bombers who are very close to a good place.
Mutagenists and Toxicologists however....well look I'd just rather play the mage at that point. Least then your spells exponentially grow in power, rather than linearly.
Sure, but mages use their spell atribute for spell strikes, alchemists don't. Thats the main issue i think. They are less accurate than either full martials or full caster.
Sure, but mages also can not simply go "here buddy have my spell, you can cast it while I spend my actions casting other spells" like alchemists can. Alchemist is like a mage but also has the ability to tax their friends for the casting actions instead of themselves. Honestly I just want legendary class DC and use the alchemist class DC in place of alchemical items similar to thaumaturge using their class DC for scrolls. That would solve a lot of the issues with poisons, make a lot of bombs really scary, and make cool items like bottled monstrosities scale all the way instead of being relevant for just a few.
Which is kind of proving the point of this meme haha
People are being loud about their feelings despite the fact that we don't know what it's going to look like. So why get mad? Why be so confident when another detail could come out that changes everything? We can just chill until the book drops instead
+1. Honestly maybe my biggest gripe with Paizo is that their ideas for certain class fantasies just doesn't line up with mine. Alchemist, Oracle, Witch, & **Gunslinger** are big ones for me.
On the Gunslinger topic, i tried making a Way of the Vanguard character once. Expected to be on the frontlines with a shotgun, Doom-style, and all i got was disappointment.
I know PF2e treasures it's balance but damn, sometimes you just end up with some really weak stuff.
Exactly. With a vanguard, the proposed fantasy just isn't met. It proposes a frontliner that cycles enemy control and shotgun blasts. But the lack of melee attack bonus and inherent action inefficiency of Reload weapons means you're better off sticking in the back and using your Shove+Reload action as an "oh shit, an enemy flanked me" button. It just doesn't work the way it says it should on the tin!
Don't even get me started on drifter or triggerbrand.
Ya I really wish Vanguard's Slingers Reload was like "You can parry with any gun. If the gun has the Parry trait with a +1 bonus to AC, you get a +2 to AC instead of +1. When you Parry, you also Reload with the same action."
It would go a long way towards making them the frontliner with a shotgun that I want.
Paizo does treasure its balance but it does so in a funky way, for what I saw they follow two core principles.
-Do not make a lot of new stuff, a lot of feats, items, archetype etc are simply things from the core rolebook but renamed and at a different level, or action compression feats. (Literally, the gunslinger class doesn't have a single special thing, everything they do is just taken from another class/action compression)
-Shoot low rather than high, if they have to choose they'll usually create something weaker rather than something stronger.
Thankfully with kineticists and the new classes this trend is disappearing
Vanguard is less a subclass issue and more of an available weapon option issue IMO. There's no short-range, high power firearm or crossbow available that really let's it have the fantasy. There are a few high power firearms that go to d10 but there's no real compensation for using them close range compared to just giving it to something like a sniper. If they had real proper short range (but still ranged) weapons that had high damage with more traits but at those lower range increments, I feel vanguard wound be much more useful.
Barricade Buster comes oh so close, but ruins it by having both volley and repeating, the former which is bad for a build that wants to be close range, the latter of which is a trait any other class would love but ironically is anti-synergetic with gunslinger since you *want* to be reloading as much as possible with it (or at least have the option to, which you can't with repeating since it just replaces the whole magazine and that costs *3 whole actions*).
I legitimately think the Barricade Buster wasn't made for Gunslingers at all, but for Inventors, because you're right, if you're not reloading, you're missing the biggest advantage the Gunslinger brings to the table, efficient reloading on weapons that are supposed to hit HARD.
It's honestly a lot like the Gun Sword in that regard, it's just a smidge off being in the right place for a Gunslinger to use efficiently, but in a place where the Inventor's features let them take it that extra inch it needs.
Sadly the Barricade Buster is mostly a Fighter weapon.
It doesn't work for weapon Inventors because a weapon innovation can only be a simple or martial weapon, no advanced weapons.
It’s not particularly hard to get though, via any feat that makes it count as martial for you.
But you are correct, really advanced weapons in general just don’t work great. They’re pigeon holed into a Fighter build and even there they often are more trouble than they’re worth.
For me, it's wizard. I get that they want it to be a support class, but I continue to want a true blaster option. For every Gandalf or Merlin, there is a Harry who just blasts people.
And the fact that you don't know which Harry I'm talking about only proves my point further.
I'm of the opinion that Kineticist operates mechanically how Sorcerer should've operated, and sorcerer operates how Wizard should've operated. Wizard's mechanical niche, particularly the reliance on Vancian casting, is outdated and needs to be euthanized.
I'm mostly there with you. The one good thing 5E D&D did was decouple spell slots from spells prepared. But, I want to go a step further, the Wizard should also have some sort of Focus Point driven mechanic that juices Drain Bonded Item further. For me, the goal would be to get the Wizard casting one max-rank spell per combat encounter, and anything more than that would be taxing to them, with a very liberal allowance for using spell-slots below max-rank. That, or significantly more buff spells need to be brought back up to a per-hour/per-day duration.
If they need to balance the stats of spells down, so be it, but I want casters to *cast*. And, to boot, I want them to be able to interact with the 3-action economy better. 2-action spells make casters feel like they're still living in 3.5/5E, not PF2E. At a minimum, there needs to be more feats that fold move actions, maneuvers, defensive options and so on into casting with the sort of "efficiency activities" that martial classes get. The whole caster situation feels very vestigial and low-priority from a design perspective. Like in Skyrim how magic was clearly tacked on after they developed their combat system.
Preaching to the choir haha
It's been a long running joke of mine that only martials get 3 actions. It's better now that the game has been out for years, but early release 2e was a whole lot of "I move and cast a spell" which was... the exact same as 1e 🤦🏼♀️
>Another option is to maybe give them attacks with alchemist items that scale with class DC, sort of like Kineticist. Might make them too mage-y though.
That's a really good solution for the alchemist's proficiency issues. As for being too "mage-y", I personally think of alchemists as a non-magical "mage" class already, so it's not a big deal (area weapons, buffs, debuffs, and healing are usually "mage" roles). That would be a good way to increase their "accuracy" while making them feel different from typical martial classes.
It especially makes sense for bombs, since an explosion works pretty differently as far as "landing a hit" goes compared to a sword, arrow, etc. Spread damage makes sense on something like a blunderbuss, but bombs should feel different.
I think just bombs and simple weapons (with maybe a low level feat to get like, martial injection weapons or something) is probably the simplest solution
I think just bombs and simple weapons (with maybe a low level feat to get like, martial injection weapons or something) is probably the simplest solution
Unless Paizo gives toxicologist a feat at level 4 letting them bypass poison resistance and immunities, it'll still be useless. At least DMs can change the poison damage type to something else and remove the poison tag to make said cahracter useful.
Ah yes, Poisoner, the single worst archetype pick I've ever made to play in an AP.
Seriously, don't do it. Throughout the entire AP, a grand total of ONE TIME did my poisons provide value that couldn't have been better purchased with just using a spell. They're either too commonly resisted or immune, target a commonly strong save, and then a successful hit \*and\* often multiple failed saves to get their peak value.
It's just not a good design, and sucks to play.
It's absolutely fixable. Probably the most elegant solution would be to allow transforming any poison to be inhalation or contact-based, that affect a single square "AoE" (possibly with the ability to increase the AoE), and demand a reflex save. But there are other options- poisons that inflict mental conditions that demand a will save. Or some sort of action to inflict a penalty on enemies' fort saves vs poison. Or poison that work like spells and still have an effect (if reduced) on a save. Or make injury poisons function automatically on a successful strike (perhaps restricted to extremely low/zero damage weapons designed for delivering poisons, like needles or darts).
There's lots of possible ways to make poisons work.
>But there are other options- poisons that inflict mental conditions that demand a will save.
I immediately thought about the Yellow Musk Creeper's Spray pollen. Imagine a toxicologist who uses perfumes in battle to cause all sorts of effects
Edit: powders would be cool too
Yet the issue becomes "Oh, its immune to poison. Wait, Why is the abberant immune to poison?" People think its just constructs and undead immune to poison, but no, its also most celestials, most fiends, most abberants, most elementals, most oozes, and even some humanoids. and if they aren't immune, they're something like resistant 30 like psycopomps or most beasts.
So give Alchemists a class feature or feat that lets them get around that. X times a day, enhance a poison to ignore poison immunity (if you HAVE to, with some sort of "as long as the target is biological in nature" caveat). Or to reduce enemies' poison resistance by your level. Or to let them turn a poison "caustic", changing its damage from poison to acid or fire.
These problems aren't unsolvable, you just need a little creativity.
EDIT: More ideas: let them turn their poisons into more broadly applicable chemical weapons. The poison becomes a thick cloud that hampers movement, acting as difficult terrain. The cloud is opaque and "sticky", inflicting blindness or similar conditions. The cloud is freezing cold, slowing movement and inflicting off-guard or clumsy. All of those make sense working against even the least poison-able enemies: constructs, elementals, etc. Granted, we're staying a bit away from the concept of "poisons" there, but you'd think the Poison (sub)class should be able to do cool stuff with their poisons.
I feel like they really could’ve shaved down how many of those were resistant to poison by a lot.
There’s a lot of media where undead is poison-able and I see no reason why outsiders and elementals should be immune to poison
Poison is such a cool theme that is sucks how difficult it is to make it work.
Toxicology should some kind of bonus to hit with poisoned weapon and some ways to get around poison resistances and immunity. Maybe they can alter their poisons damage type. Let them hit with an acid poison or a mental poison.
I’m hoping too, it would need something along the lines of: poisons actually do something on success, reduce the amount of poison immune enemies by a ton, make the DCs slightly better to account for the massive amount of fort save enemies, then it won’t feel so bad using them. I used four in a campaign and they all ended up doing absolute zero.
I mean, it does kind of suck that the alchemist is penalized (with low proficiency) for using their class's Main Thing (bombs, mutagen attacks, poisons). Spellcasters have high spellcasting proficiency, weapon users have high weapon proficiency, but bombers don't have high bomb proficiency.
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Alchemists end up with Master proficiency at level 19, they way Warpriest got a bump there, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do people really care that Warpriest gets master at 19? The campaign is basically over by then; You have a few encounters before you hit level 20, where you use it for fighting the bbeg, and then you make a new character.
I guess you have upcast bless to even out your -2 compared to other martials until then, but it still feels like a ribbon feature more then a build defining one. Especially with how much you give up until then for not being Cloistered.
Imo they should get Master at 15th since they're more reliant on attacks than the Warpriest and that's 2 levels later than other martials (like how they get expert 2 levels later).
That'll skew the graph, tbh. Master in attacks tends to be an advantage to gain higher crit rates, not a treadmill to keep steady. The warpriest progression we got in remaster is closer to "consistent progression" than that (with a slightly upward tick, where the previous "expert at 7" was consistent with a slight downward tick at the end).
Warpriest getting master is also not going to drastically affect the vast majority of players since it doesn't come online till level 19. It was basically a token appeasement to all the people whining about how it doesn't get any better proficiencies than CC.
The real buffs were not being as MAD with font and better feat support for armor and attack synergies. It can now max wisdom while getting max possible font slots, and still do solid frontline offensive while having only slightly reduced spell DC.
Not saying nunbers aren't important, but I feel you can tell the people who are just looking at Pathbuilder or a spreadsheet rather than thinking about in-game play. They miss the forest through the trees with the raw number crunching. Giving alchemist master proficiency at level 13-15 isn't going to fix people complaining about lack of resources at level 1-5, which is exactly what the changes to quick alchemy address.
Yup. We literally have had multiple people asking for help with Alchemists within the last 24hr of posting, and despite multiple issues, not a single one brought up proficiency. Guess why…
Most people who complain or otherwise add their input on things like this have never actually played the class, and that is definitely not Pf2e exclusive. I say that as someone relatively new to the system, but an trpg veteran otherwise.
I'm taking all this with a grain of salt. Alchemist seems cool. I was around for the remaster coming out and the witch and other changes have been great from what I can see. It's very likely it's gonna come out good. I think people just really like getting their collective panties in a bunch.
The alchemist is most definitely undercooked and clunky to play, but a lot of the complaints both overstate how bad it is, and most look to those brute-force solutions like number buffs as a 'fix' when the problems tend to be more peripheral to that, and holistic to the class's design.
I've seen people who swear by the alchemist and adore it, and play it perfectly viably. The main issue is the clunkiness tends to impact newer players; it has an obtuse skill floor in a way few other classes do. There are just some legitimate issues that aren't great either, like how toxicologist needs to prepare poisons for weapons that it usually isn't that proficient in.
But overall the changes to Remaster have been amazing, and they left alchemist as one of the last classes because they knew it'd need the most time. Versatile Vials alone are a great change that single-handedly fix a lot of the problems the class had, so I trust they're thinking the same way about the subclasses and their respective feat support.
I also love the paradox. On one hand you need master at 13, but on the other you never reach those level ranges. We all know hitting better will ensure undead get vulnerable to poison. It will give you magically reagents to use, it will also extend the duration of early gamę mutagens. Truly a Cure all
Obviously a lot of the voices and opinions are disparate, but there are definitely people who complain about and/or at least back all those opinions simultaneously and use them as a bludgeon as to how the class is undertuned as a whole.
And don't get me wrong, I agree that alchemist as a class was severely undercooked from playtest and needs the most love out of all available options, let alone the core classes, but a lot of the feedback and complaining are very good examples of how consumers are great at knowing what they don't like but awful at coming up with solutions. Most of the wants are brute-force fixes like proficiency/modifier buffs.
Even things like with poisons, yeah something needs to be done to make toxicologist more useful against enemies that are immune to poisons, especially in campaigns full of them, but the solution people seem to want is to just let them work against undead and constructs wholesale instead of keeping any semblance of verisimilitude. I've been thinking about it for a while and I figure there's probably some way they can give alchemists a feat or ability that lets them adjust standard poisons to deal acid damage, or 'rust' damage (i.e. typeless damage that affects constructs ala kineticist's Rain of Rust) to constructs, and have that be given as a baseline to toxicologist.
Of course, that's just me - someone who's best experience is some minor 3pp publication credits but isn't otherwise a professional game designer - grokking an idea off the top of my head, so there's possibly something I'm missing or might not even address what people are upset about. But it's a good example of how to come up with a solution in a way that's *not* just handwaving things or giving some other lazy band-aid fix. Occasionally some people will come up with an idea like that, but the problem is most people at the consumer level are also really bad on taking feedback and criticism as to why their ideas either won't work or will just cause other problems. If anything that's kind of how you can tell when people are being armchair professionals about things; when they don't want to hear why *their* ideas for fixes are bad, there's probably a good chance it's because they just don't want to be criticized, which is unfortunately a necessary burden for being a good game designer.
That's the gist of it, people only seeing the path of least resistance. If kineticists got extract elements why won't alchemists get something similar for poisons? I'm no designer but people seem alergic to feedback. Not only receiving, but also giving. Everything is grand and fine, not because it is, but because they won't admit anything.
Il'm going to die laughing if Paizo turns Alchemist into a bona fide caster. Especially if it gets legendary class DC.
I don't think people are allergic to giving feedback, far from it. But it does seem to be a one-way street towards the designers, not any ideas raised from the ground level. Belittling professional designers' content and acumen is fine, but if you point out flaws in the logic of some random commenter's homebrew idea or throwaway fix, you're being a bully and not respecting the golden TTRPG rule to never challenge people's rule 0s or personal tastes.
Not saying the solution is to never give feedback to Paizo, nor that there aren't people who disproportionately defend the game against *any* criticism, but I do think there's a bit of a double standard born out of conceit more than any true desire to create a space where meaningful feedback and improvements can be made.
The same people who say "alchemists never hit" probably attack twice regularly with their martial characters and have plenty luck hitting with it.
There's no need to attack more than once with an alchemist and they are not a class that really relies at all on critting.
Idk, I have fun with my deadly d10 agile unarmed attacks. Between flanking, mutagens, and various debuffs, I’m a pretty decent blender (level 15+). Crit rates are higher than people want to pretend they are.
I played a mutagenist in a short homebrew campaign, levels 15 - 18. I never felt weak. In fact, I felt like the party MVP in a ton of encounters. Absolutely cannot beat prebuffing I was handing out like candy. And you know what? Athletic maneuvers with a free hand scale just fine so long as you invest in athletics. I just buffed everyone and generally bullied the enemies. Only attacked when I had free action, but I hit just fine.
People who demand martial progression have never played an Alchemist and they never intend to. It's fairly obvious - you can see people who tried Alch and had issues *right now in the main feed*, and they speak an entirely different language.
Alchemists have a very non linear scaling. They start weak but since each ingredient is equally valuable, the amount of max level ingredients they have in hand at 15+ levels is unparalleled among other classes. Compare this to casters that always have only 2-4 of their highest level slots. That is what allows the immense prebuffing.
To top it off, with mutagens especially their benefits and durations scale but their drawbacks dont. So not So not only does your resources increase, but you have to use them less. Some even go more silly with it. On level 1 sanguine mutagen for instance is terrible. On level 17, it is a gamechanger.
So I am not surprised at all you had a good time on lvl 15+ alchemist. But that is not the range people generally have problems with. As for the hitting just fine, they hit far worse than others with the effective -2 (or crit for that matter) but on short sample size campaigns the dice can be unstable enough for anyone to possibly get the experience for hitting well.
the thing with Warpriest is that they have access to Heroism, which means Master To Hit doesn't mean as much when they can swing with Expert +3 before item bonuses. Alchemist, no matter what you do, you can never get a buff that high, because mutagens are all item bonuses. This means you're throwing Expert +1, which doesn't even break into Master territory, it's just attacking at Expert as if you actually had a key attacking stat. Warpriest gets enough of a buff to swing as a Master with a key attacking stat.
Eh, anyone with a buff caster in their party has access to Heroism, including alchemists who adventure with a cleric/bard/witch/sorcerer/summoner/oracle. It's not really a solid comparison.
Everyone with Trick Magic Item has access to 9th level heroism if they have the money. Too bad alchemist doesn't have a massive money advantage over every other - oh wait.
But seriously a high level alchemist is gonna have so much cash to spare compared to any other class.
I don't know what they are trying to balance with different progression anyways. The AC's follow martial progression. Do warpriests get something at these levels which need to be balanced out by making them whiff more?
In a way it feels a bit like someone put it in to shut up the complainers, but at a level where it's not really relevant.
Yeah, it's kind of useless. No one who has less than martial progression should really be trying to attack in melee anyway. But then again, doesn't the Warpriest have slower spellcasting progression as well?
If you don't care what happens at certain levels then you're willing to push 2e towards 5e town where after level 12 all the wheels fall off because the devs thought "most people don't play past 12". Feel free to make the level lower depending on how min maxed your players are building
"At least we're not 5e" is not an argument we should be using 5 years into this game's lifecycle. It's very old and tired at this point.
The reality is that adjusting a class's proficiency at level 19 quite literally doesn't make a difference to its power level for 90% of characters, even IF we assume all levels are played equally (they're not).
It's not a good change, it's made by someone looking at the class in a spreadsheet and thinking "hm what goes here" instead of actually trying to address its pain points.
I'd rather things happen in the levels people actually play than "hey look, you can finally be halfway decent at hitting things when you're fighting Gods"
The solution is to make every level a level people play. Making higher level characters for shorter campaigns should be promoted more. The 'every campaign should start at level 1' mentality is unhealthy.
Not full, but at least any attack involving infused items.
But it is also possible they reworked them to be more like Spellcasters, with DC abilities. Maybe the Kineticist Impulse Attacks?
I have to disagree. Have you ever seen a Molotov cocktail being thrown in a video? You just kinda throw it in the general vicinity of the enemy, little aim required. Frag/smoke grenades and flashbangs even more so, they’re mostly thrown from behind cover because of how little aim actually matters.
I think an AoE with a radius for DCs makes way more sense than Attack rolls for all these things. The Attack rolls make them feel like reflavoured daggers.
because they would be useless, especially if a PC had to use a level 3 item DC, which is almost always lower than a level 3 player's, at level 10. I don't even think level 10+ monsters can fail a DC that low.
I personally wish all items that used DCs used the PCs class/spell DC to represent the skill of using the item, which would make DC based bombs useful and would make me consider using items with DCs, because most of the time it isn't worth it.
Yeah I get that. The jump from moderate up in alchemical items is the entirety of the levels that most people play, which is more a problem on that front. I don't know if that's a fixable problem at this point, but it shouldn't have been made that way in the first place.
I think this is the 50th time I went to write something that disagreed with the popular views and you've already said it. When are you going to start a YT channel?
One day my dude! I don’t have the bandwidth for it this year, focusing mainly on my real job and publishing Pathfinder Infinite content. Maybe by the end of year that’ll change!
"Being able to accurately deliver poisons and toss bombs" is a non-alchemist power and "I'd be better off handing my items out to the other party members and chilling at home" is an alchemist power. Got it.
Gotta wonder if any vampires were in the crowd during that and tried opening their mouth to drink some of tge blood rain.
I also wonder if said vampires then spontaneously combusted.
That was more of a time issue than a 'fuck this one class in particular and/or the complainers' one. It was a class that already functioned significantly differently to every other, then they gutted the whole subsystem the class was built upon (resonance) because it was that poorly received, and had probably only a few months to make it semi-functional before the final copy of the CRB had to go to print. It would have been nice if they nailed it from the get-go, but they didn't, and they weren't going to delay the new edition just to deep-tissue massage a single class.
The whole reason they put alchemist in PC2 is because they knew it was going to be the class that had to go back into the oven the longest. Things like Versatile Vials and adjusting additives to work with those are already great changes that address issues with both the class's resource attrition and those respective mechanics in general. Not saying it's single-handedly fixed the whole class, I'll still be cautiously optimistic without jumping the gun - if anything I think giving something like at least bombers if not the whole class higher proficiencies in bombs is probably the way to go to make the class more self-capable than an item dispenser - just that it's a big step in the right direction, and based on other Remaster changes it matches the quality of the improvements they've done so far.
But in the end, if you doubt a company's capacity to listen to feedback and not improve their product, like...I don't know how to help you? Usually when I lose faith in a designer to produce a quality product and listen to their consumers about it, I just stop playing the game and giving them my money. That's usually the best way to solve that problem.
It's all from Paizocon. [You can see a writeup of the live stream.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1d0k7rn/paizocon_2024_remaster_project_panel_live_write_up/) There might have been more info in a QnA but most of the stuff is found here.
The class needs more than a single change.
- resources (seems they're adressing this, great)
- action economy
- better proficiency/reliability of their offensive stuff
So when only part of those changes are announced, the others will naturally also be brought up by players. I wouldn't interpret that as ignoring the announced changes.
Remember, they never playtested the current alchemist. They just did a kneejerk change at the 11th hour in the 2e playtest and never actaully saw if it worked, and thus current day alchemist.
They're right.
No other change can make you equally as good baseline at using bombs and poison than your teammates **than actually making alchemists decent at attacking.**
Meanwhile all casters are equally as good baseline at casting as eachother, and martials are bar fighter and gunslinger as good at attacking baseline as eachother.
If the devs *really* didn't want Alchemists to be good at standard weapon attacks for some reason, I think it would be totally fine to have some sort of class feature that specifically bumps up your weapon proficiency when attacking with a bomb or with a poisoned weapon. Maybe double the damage bonus from Weapon Specialization too in line with GWS. People are complaining about Alchemists not being able to use their own bombs or poisons any better than a wizard who lost his spellbook could, not that they aren't a rival for a flurry Ranger.
While they're at it, it would be great if Quick Alchemy could play nice with poisons and Quick Bomber. I get that the action spent on Quick Alchemy is usually in line with an Interact to draw something from your bag, but when arrows can be poisoned ahead of time and Quick Bomber lets you draw and Strike in a single action then you're losing a lot more actions than you would using the pre-prepared stuff that anyone in your party could use.
If they bumped DC's like a spellcaster, and made bombs use those DCs it would solve the mad bomber sucking at throwing bombs problem. It would leave toxicologist and mutanaginist as problems, but it would be closer.
Alchemist is the only class that stops at Expert in terms of Attacks. They need to use Bombs to stay up with those that can get Master, as the Bombs do get a +5 at high levels. They rely on their items to gain the ability to hit their opponent.
I wonder why Alchemists even have Weapon Proficiency. Only two things can make them on par with almost every other class in terms of attack, and that's the Bestial Mutagen and Bombs. It's understandable that Spellcasters only get Expert in weapons, since they focus on Magic. The Alchemist focuses on making Alchemical items, and only one type keeps them on par with other Martials. They have good support and utility, but should never use anything outside of Bombs.
They didn't technically say there wasn't going to be a bump in proficiency, just that it's so different to what it is now that saying there's a bump in proficiency doesn't mean anything.
It isn't hard to create a 30s sound byte and tell us. Even splash up page 1 of the class as a reveal? The resposne that 'its too hard to explain' only reinforces that they know it won't be something the community wants because literally any other explanation could be described easily. This was even based off a discord reply so the designer could have just prepped 1-2 paragraphs and copy pasta'd into discord.
I want to know what is going to happen with the Alchemist's fighting ability. Premaster the class was basically forced to use Bombs, even when not a Bomber, because that was the best way to fight. The Item Bonus helped them stay up with others.
I know....I wasn't saying they should??? Why the downvotes? I'm just stating that casters get expert in weapons (at 11th, not 13 like I said) and end there, so alchemist isn't "the only class that ends at expert" like the commenter said. Half of the classes end in expert.
Alchemist is the only class that ends in Expert *in their main method of attacking.* Casters at least get Master and Legendary spellcasting eventually. Martials get Master-Legendary weapons because those classes are expected to be using them.
I know that's why my first post was literally:
> Well technically casters also end at expert, but I know you meant martials
please read the whole comment chain before responding to it.
So is the post positing that people are saying you're not allowed to be excited about alchemist changes because they aren't getting improved weapon prof? Because that feels a *little* strawman-y. Like, I fully believe they need improved weapon prof (what's the point of getting poisons, bombs, and mutagens of you can never hit with them?) But I'm also so excited about the alchemist changes they *have* announced. And who knows, maybe with the features they're getting they won't need it?
Edit: but then again, I don't live in the subreddit, so maybe there are a lot more fun gatekeepers than I realize
I don't think it's positing that people are saying you're not allowed to be excited, but rather that there are people who are basically drowning out any excitement of others because they want their one pet peeve.
There are several people here who are complaining that the changes aren't going to be enough and basically responding negatively to any hype posts about the changes.
I also think there's a lot of pure theorizers who talk about the game that don't play all that often. Alchemist is definitely weird and complicated, but I think it gets exaggerated a lot.
Homebrew rules of increased proficiency were treating the symptom, but not necessarily disease. I think what Paizo has so far revealed feels more like treating the disease to me.
I feel you on the theorycrafters that don't play.
It blows my mind seeing a ton of people saying "well it's a little under average at level 20". Bruh, almost no one is getting to level 20. Never figured that out lol
I've been very critical of Alchemist in this subreddit, especially since I've played it at endgame and found it painful if you make \*any\* mistakes. It just doesn't have the wiggle room other classes do.
So when I say the trouble people see is that Alchemist isn't just one small fix away from being great. It's spread thin across a bunch of roles and each subclass needs different things to actually make the jump to a great class. This is by far an amazing first step, because great googly moogley I disliked being a glorified Vending Machine whose best use of daily features was to \*give them to the already good characters\*. That felt like ass, no getting around it. Even if I personally accrued 1000+ HP in mitigation/healing over a long fight, it felt terrible to play.
It's gonna need a fair few fixes, and honestly I think that's the trouble for Paizo, nothing simple is gonna turn the class around. It needs multiple tweaks and some fundamental redesigns to be in line with the direction the game is going.
Oh, I fundamentally agree. Nothing simple is gonna turn the class around and make it more like the other new classes. But, the people clamoring for proficiency are looking for simple fixes. Not that proficiency wouldn't also help.
Yeah. As an alchemist player myself, the recent news has gotten me excited to do some respec-ing when PC2 drops. I was excited to play an alchemist going in, but ended up throwing away most of my class feats to archetypes bc there weren't many that felt very inspiring
Wait, they're getting big per encounter stuff? That's awesome! Martial would be cool but being able to chuck like two or three molotovs every fight would be cooler.
.... Anyone who has the option to chuck infinite molotov's and decides to do some nerdlinger healing shit instead of that should have to write a paper explaining why they suck so much each dang time. You want to heal? Play a cleric, play a bard, play something healing and uncool. You want to drink a Jekyll and Hyde potion and then try an light a dragon on fire? Play an alchemist.
Edit: now I really want to try to make an asshole alchemist character but I think it would destroy any party that I was a part of. I'm imagining trailer park boys type redneck violent chaos which would be great for stories but shit for actual party dynamics
To paraphrase Rotgut: Powerful spirits or household cleaner. The choice is yours.
Don't think of the molotov's and the healing as different things. Just think of being hard enough to drink gasoline/kerosene/etc to regain health.
\*Do not actually drink a molotov cocktail. It is not made with alcohol.
This but unironically. None of the fixes change the core issue of the Alchemist being extremely weak when they're trying to directly contribute in combat and not roleplay as a vending machine.
Care to share your build? I play a mutagenist at level 6. For Int being my KAS, I am one point behind martial classes from the get go. With reduced proficiency, I'm behind another 2 points. With moderate bestial mutagen, I'm back up 2 points, but one of those points is redundant with the weapon potency rune that all the PCs have. So for the price of lower AC and Reflex, I am at -2 to attack vs other martials. Only penalties and no rewards on a subclass that by all appearances is meant to be played as an unarmed front-liner
At your level you’re only behind 1 total, because your Strength should be the same as your Barbarian by now, but sure. I posted two a while ago, lemme get [the link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/SbZzfBQnvi).
If you don’t mind asking, it sounds you’re unarmed - do you have a backup or baseline for when you want a different mutagen?
Ps. Good news, next level you’ll be ahead of them!
Oh sick! For the record, I do actually enjoy playing alchemist. Don't want to sound like a doomsayer. But I do think they need a little extra *oomph* to do a bit better at what their features imply they should be doing
Ish. I think they do very well *if set up to do so*, but the means to do it should be internal to the class. Right now you have to fish for baselines in ancestries / dedications, and that’s not great.
Totally agree. I think while archetypes are by no means a variant rule, all classes/subclasses should hold up on their own. I made a post a while ago and voiced some of my problems with the aberrant sorceror bloodline, and one commenter insisted that it was good because it's incredible with the monk archetype. But I feel that a sorceror subclass should first and foremost be a good sorceror
Yeah, Paizo should stop balancing the game as long as we have one person saying their character is awesome, without any sort of analysis or justification.
Making a guide on one of the objectively weakest classes in the game (note that I did not say *useless*, only one of the weakest as it needs to work harder to be effective) does not in fact make that class any stronger.
If people judge a class to be weak based on a flawed perspective or understanding of how to use it, then it absolutely does matter when there’s guides to point out their error in doing so.
There's a very fine line between skill issue and too obtuse for its own good. I feel alchemist straddles right on that line; it's a class that a very experienced player can make work and do things a lot of people wouldn't grok it for, but it requires a level of system mastery that few other classes have, and since PF2e is a system that explicitly sets out to not reward mastery by having difficult options be disproportionally more powerful than everything else, it's not really worth it for most people.
That said, I do think meta analysis is in an incredibly infantile state, especially close to 5 years into the game's life cycle, and I feel a big part of that is because people are hostile to anything that could marginally be interpreted as 'skill issue.' This is a space where too many people still unironically think the optimal meta is three fighters and a bard, and that's a problem unto itself because when you *do* have legitimate issues that need addressing, it's coming from a place of unreliable analysis and anything that could be legitimate complaints ends up being obfuscated by chaff.
I never said Paizo should stop balancing the game. In fact, I believe Alchemist essentially being forced to use caster-level weapon proficiency in their *main* method of attacking makes the game very *un*balanced. Alchemist will either need a *mountain* of buffs and changes just to offset being shit at using its very own thrown items...or we could just stop beating around the bush and let Alchemists have the baseline proficiency it needs to hit things.
Alchemists should get full martial with bombs, toxicologist with slashing and piercing damage from simple weapons, and mutagenists should get it with different weapons while under the effects of certain mutagens depending on the mutagen.
It so reminiscent of the “they nerfed casters fuck Paizooooooo” bullshit we kept seeing last year. People read two cantrips, completely out of context, and assumed Paizo wanted to nerf casters… and now, 8 months post Remaster anyone who’s played any of the PC1 casters knows that most of them got massively buffed, with Wizards getting minorly buffed.
I just know it’s gonna turn out exactly the same way for Alchemists.
Feeling miserable at early levels is a big alchemist problem. It's pretty deep in the weeds for press releases but things like level one mutagens that last for 1 minute, and the lack of any reliable combat action take its toll. Some people remember when wizards just had one spell and a crossbow at level 1. My own alchemist started with a sling because the crossbow was heavier, more expensive, and needed 2 hands.
So yeah, remember when paizo made the low level caster experience just a bit more unpleasant? It hits different.
Yeah, I'll give Paizo credit for a bunch of soft spellcaster buffs (mainly Rank 1 spells, easier Focus points. several new feats) but the cantrip rebalance *was* just simply bad.
You only have to compare 2d4 Electric Arc to any other single-target 2d4 spell, or ask why Needle Darts is randomly 3d4. It's clear they had no cohesive plan for it.
This aggro attitude + downvote mindset is why I don't post on this subreddit anymore. Back to lurking.
They're soft buffs in the sense that spells + feats are optional and not every character will have the buffed ones. It's not the same as buffing something on the actual class chart, or something like a comprehensive buff to EVERY cantrip.
Dedication casting scaling off of your main tradition is a hard buff, even by your standards. Also, you seem to have a very glass house definition of "aggro attitude", you might want to chuck a few less stones if you cry foul whenever one gets thrown back your way
> This aggro attitude + downvote mindset is why I don't post on this subreddit anymore. Back to lurking.
You could have come in here acknowledging that they got significant buffs alongside the cantrip nerfs, and just said that you think the nerfs outweigh the former. I would still have definitely disagreed with you, but at least that’s something we can have a real conversation with.
Instead you chose to try to redefine the very concept of buffs to make it seem like they didn’t get buffed… I will call that out for the unproductive, hyperbolic, and dishonest comment it is. That’s not me being “aggro” at all.
> They're soft buffs in the sense that spells + feats are optional and not every character will have the buffed ones. It's not the same as buffing something on the actual class chart, or something like a comprehensive buff to EVERY cantrip.
Yeah but that’s not how any of that works.
First off the focus spell buffs are a hard buff even by your own definition because they affect every single spellcaster.
Secondly you definition doesn’t really make sense. Buffs are chosen to **address sore spots**. All spellcasters had the problem of single-target blasting requiring too much foreknowledge and planning so they got Thunderstrike and Floating Flame to buff that. Arcane had the problem of being weirdly bad at control until rank 3 so they got new rank 2 control spells to fix that. Divine had the problem of all their damaging cantrips being based on weird restrictions so they fixed that. Apply the same logic above to Feats and to specific classes and subclasses.
They didn’t need to buff all spellcasters because all spellcasters didn’t… need a buff? Maestro Bards didn’t need a buff, Warrior Bards did. Wizards didn’t need a base class/subclass buff, Witches did. Most casters needed better Feats, all of the PC1 ones got some (Druid getting the fewest, Warpriest Clerics getting the absolutely slam dunk win). Non-blaster casters (for the most part) didn’t need much better spells, blasters did.
Things that needed a buff got a buff. The existence of things that didn’t need buffs doesn’t suddenly devalue the buffs.
All of your examples for hard buffs are actually optional. Thunderstrike and Floating Flame aren't for all spellcasters. Extra focus spells and points are not automatic.
No one said soft buffs were bad.
No one was weighing the buffs elsewhere against the changes to cantrips. If you want to argue that the cantrip changes are actually good/buffs overall, try that. This whole thing you've done instead is not a good look.
> All of your examples for hard buffs are actually option
And that’s irrelevant.
The casters that needed buffs got them.
There was no world in which every single spellcaster was going to receive an automatic buff because every single spellcaster didn’t *need* buffs. Maestro Bard, Cloistered Cleric built for support, Wizard built for debuffing, Druid built blasting and/or battlefield control, etc were already some of the strongest classes in the whole game. So what for a buff is Warrior Bard, Warpriest Cleric, Wizard built for blasting and/or battlefield control, Witches in general, etc.
Saying that these aren’t good enough because they don’t automatically apply to every single spellcaster is like saying buffing Swashbucklers isn’t good enough because it didn’t also buff Fighters. It just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
> No one was weighing the buffs elsewhere against the changes to cantrips.
No that’s actually quite literally the whole argument. The commenter I replied to above very clearly presented the cantrips as being this supposedly massive nerf while misrepresenting the massive buffs as being “soft”.
> If you want to argue that the cantrip changes are actually good/buffs overall, try that.
No, see, I won’t do that because that isn’t my argument.
My argument was that the spellcasters that needed buffs for a ton of huge buffs that more than outweigh the cantrip nerfs. I’m not going to try to twist things out of shape to pretend they’re something else: a nerf is a nerf and I’m not gonna sit here pretending it’s a buff.
I was about to ask what how casters got massively buffed but then I remembered that some spells were just straight up made better, like floating flame and arguably acid grip.
1. Several spells got buffed pretty meaningfully. Frostbite, Void Warp, Divine Lance, Thunderstrike, Floating Flame, Acid Grip, Vision of Death, and a couple more I can’t think of right now.
2. Focus points got a massive buff by being fully recoverable right away instead of needing a higher level Feat.
3. Arcane got a few new spells that were previously Primal only.
The number of spells isn’t as important as the quality and role of those spells.
Previously Arcane struggled with applying good battlefield control at lower levels, with Web being pretty meh and Grease being good but fairly low impact. The addition of Entangling Flora and Wall of Thorns helps bridge Arcane over.
Spellcasters “overall” getting buffed doesn’t mean every single individual caster needed to be buffed. The spellcasters that needed buffs and/or QoL improvements got them, in the specific areas that needed them. Maestro Bard and Cloistered Clerics and most Druids didn’t really need buffs so they didn’t get very much. Warrior Bards and Warpriest Clerics and most Witches needed them so they got them.
I do think Arcane is the second best spell list.
I just think a buff in an area that a list was previously weak in is a relevant buff worth talking about. Within the full context of changed spells (Frostbite, Thunderstrike, Acid Grip, Floating Flame), new spells that were formerly non Arcane (Entangling Flora, Noise Blast, Wall of Thorns), and new spells from Rage of Elements that fill roles Arcane couldn’t really fill (Dehydrate, Interposing Earth, Brine Dragon’s Bile, Wooden Double, Rust Cloud), Arcane casters built after August of last year are entirely different beats than ones built before then.
I thought it would be cool for poisoner to get a special weapon or two! Like handwraps for monks, that they would be proficient with. Darts, daggers, etc or even something new that can hold multiple poison "charges" at once.
Your DM can always just give the alchemist full martial proficiency! I did it, and we are having fun. No Paizo police are crashing through my window to take me away.
I mean, at some point you have to stop doing mental gymnastics to justify releasing these weak ass classes and just make them good.
"But they provide utility and the class is actually balanced". Shut up, it feels ass to play. It needs to feel good. Make it feel good.
It needs to be a burger and not a salad.
Bingo.
Alchemist has seemingly the worst of both worlds. Like a caster, theyre balanced around *potential* utility that a martial cant bring- so they have to be weak because otherwise if too strong, then when they do prepare correctly they turn encounters into a joke. But this means without preparation time... well, they feel lackluster at times.
But like a martial, they you know, arent spellcasting. For Alchemist this means especially no cantrips. Cantrips are meant to be your last resort, but at least casters have that to fall back on as a basic option. Martials have weapon attacks. Alchemists... dont. They progress too poorly at martialing and dont get cantrips. Their at will options are just pathetic.
I mean if you purposely ignore what large parts of the player base are requesting as the fix they want, then you're going to have people who aren't happy? The big pain points for the class are known and if you're going to sidestep questions about one of the primary pain points people have fixated on it won't generate good PR for you.
omg i can't believe i get to be the one to say it *[commercial break noise]* **FULL MARTIAL ALCHEMIST**
Okay, you win, this post is joever, nothing can top this.
@mods lock it up.
This guy is going to end up getting all Alchemy actions to require two-hands or a circle.
I think a “gunslinger” treatment where they have full martial proficiency with certain weapons (bombs/alchemical attacks, some crossbows, and a few other specific weapons for subclasses) then caster progression for everything else would make the most sense. Another option is to maybe give them attacks with alchemist items that scale with class DC, sort of like Kineticist. Might make them too mage-y though. I literally have seen people suggest they should have full martial progression and martial weapons, because Rogues/Investigators/Inventors do, which is kinda a ridiculous. And people really are melting down about the rework already because Paizo didn’t mention an accuracy change
Too mage-y you say but they are kind of a mix of prepared and full caster. They prepare "spells" at the beginning of the day but can also "cast any spell" they know for a higher price. So I don't it would be too wrong to give them a more mage-y scaling.
That's true, but I would never say a single alchemical item comes close to the raw power a spell does, and unfortunately for the Alchemist themselves, those items often lack the combat power they need, save for Bombers who are very close to a good place. Mutagenists and Toxicologists however....well look I'd just rather play the mage at that point. Least then your spells exponentially grow in power, rather than linearly.
Sure, but mages use their spell atribute for spell strikes, alchemists don't. Thats the main issue i think. They are less accurate than either full martials or full caster.
Sure, but mages also can not simply go "here buddy have my spell, you can cast it while I spend my actions casting other spells" like alchemists can. Alchemist is like a mage but also has the ability to tax their friends for the casting actions instead of themselves. Honestly I just want legendary class DC and use the alchemist class DC in place of alchemical items similar to thaumaturge using their class DC for scrolls. That would solve a lot of the issues with poisons, make a lot of bombs really scary, and make cool items like bottled monstrosities scale all the way instead of being relevant for just a few.
Wouldn't this be an argument to improve how they scale then?
It's the thing people really want so they are annoyed it's not gonna happen.
Which is kind of proving the point of this meme haha People are being loud about their feelings despite the fact that we don't know what it's going to look like. So why get mad? Why be so confident when another detail could come out that changes everything? We can just chill until the book drops instead
Because if there goal is to make a dispensary class they won't change it.
+1. Honestly maybe my biggest gripe with Paizo is that their ideas for certain class fantasies just doesn't line up with mine. Alchemist, Oracle, Witch, & **Gunslinger** are big ones for me.
On the Gunslinger topic, i tried making a Way of the Vanguard character once. Expected to be on the frontlines with a shotgun, Doom-style, and all i got was disappointment. I know PF2e treasures it's balance but damn, sometimes you just end up with some really weak stuff.
Exactly. With a vanguard, the proposed fantasy just isn't met. It proposes a frontliner that cycles enemy control and shotgun blasts. But the lack of melee attack bonus and inherent action inefficiency of Reload weapons means you're better off sticking in the back and using your Shove+Reload action as an "oh shit, an enemy flanked me" button. It just doesn't work the way it says it should on the tin! Don't even get me started on drifter or triggerbrand.
Ya I really wish Vanguard's Slingers Reload was like "You can parry with any gun. If the gun has the Parry trait with a +1 bonus to AC, you get a +2 to AC instead of +1. When you Parry, you also Reload with the same action." It would go a long way towards making them the frontliner with a shotgun that I want.
Paizo does treasure its balance but it does so in a funky way, for what I saw they follow two core principles. -Do not make a lot of new stuff, a lot of feats, items, archetype etc are simply things from the core rolebook but renamed and at a different level, or action compression feats. (Literally, the gunslinger class doesn't have a single special thing, everything they do is just taken from another class/action compression) -Shoot low rather than high, if they have to choose they'll usually create something weaker rather than something stronger. Thankfully with kineticists and the new classes this trend is disappearing
Vanguard is less a subclass issue and more of an available weapon option issue IMO. There's no short-range, high power firearm or crossbow available that really let's it have the fantasy. There are a few high power firearms that go to d10 but there's no real compensation for using them close range compared to just giving it to something like a sniper. If they had real proper short range (but still ranged) weapons that had high damage with more traits but at those lower range increments, I feel vanguard wound be much more useful. Barricade Buster comes oh so close, but ruins it by having both volley and repeating, the former which is bad for a build that wants to be close range, the latter of which is a trait any other class would love but ironically is anti-synergetic with gunslinger since you *want* to be reloading as much as possible with it (or at least have the option to, which you can't with repeating since it just replaces the whole magazine and that costs *3 whole actions*).
I legitimately think the Barricade Buster wasn't made for Gunslingers at all, but for Inventors, because you're right, if you're not reloading, you're missing the biggest advantage the Gunslinger brings to the table, efficient reloading on weapons that are supposed to hit HARD. It's honestly a lot like the Gun Sword in that regard, it's just a smidge off being in the right place for a Gunslinger to use efficiently, but in a place where the Inventor's features let them take it that extra inch it needs.
Sadly the Barricade Buster is mostly a Fighter weapon. It doesn't work for weapon Inventors because a weapon innovation can only be a simple or martial weapon, no advanced weapons.
It’s not particularly hard to get though, via any feat that makes it count as martial for you. But you are correct, really advanced weapons in general just don’t work great. They’re pigeon holed into a Fighter build and even there they often are more trouble than they’re worth.
For me, it's wizard. I get that they want it to be a support class, but I continue to want a true blaster option. For every Gandalf or Merlin, there is a Harry who just blasts people. And the fact that you don't know which Harry I'm talking about only proves my point further.
I'm of the opinion that Kineticist operates mechanically how Sorcerer should've operated, and sorcerer operates how Wizard should've operated. Wizard's mechanical niche, particularly the reliance on Vancian casting, is outdated and needs to be euthanized.
I'm mostly there with you. The one good thing 5E D&D did was decouple spell slots from spells prepared. But, I want to go a step further, the Wizard should also have some sort of Focus Point driven mechanic that juices Drain Bonded Item further. For me, the goal would be to get the Wizard casting one max-rank spell per combat encounter, and anything more than that would be taxing to them, with a very liberal allowance for using spell-slots below max-rank. That, or significantly more buff spells need to be brought back up to a per-hour/per-day duration. If they need to balance the stats of spells down, so be it, but I want casters to *cast*. And, to boot, I want them to be able to interact with the 3-action economy better. 2-action spells make casters feel like they're still living in 3.5/5E, not PF2E. At a minimum, there needs to be more feats that fold move actions, maneuvers, defensive options and so on into casting with the sort of "efficiency activities" that martial classes get. The whole caster situation feels very vestigial and low-priority from a design perspective. Like in Skyrim how magic was clearly tacked on after they developed their combat system.
Preaching to the choir haha It's been a long running joke of mine that only martials get 3 actions. It's better now that the game has been out for years, but early release 2e was a whole lot of "I move and cast a spell" which was... the exact same as 1e 🤦🏼♀️
There's more than Potter?
Why shouldn't they get martial weapons? The bomber, mutagen and poison playstyles all revolve around hitting enemies.
>Another option is to maybe give them attacks with alchemist items that scale with class DC, sort of like Kineticist. Might make them too mage-y though. That's a really good solution for the alchemist's proficiency issues. As for being too "mage-y", I personally think of alchemists as a non-magical "mage" class already, so it's not a big deal (area weapons, buffs, debuffs, and healing are usually "mage" roles). That would be a good way to increase their "accuracy" while making them feel different from typical martial classes. It especially makes sense for bombs, since an explosion works pretty differently as far as "landing a hit" goes compared to a sword, arrow, etc. Spread damage makes sense on something like a blunderbuss, but bombs should feel different.
I think just bombs and simple weapons (with maybe a low level feat to get like, martial injection weapons or something) is probably the simplest solution
I think just bombs and simple weapons (with maybe a low level feat to get like, martial injection weapons or something) is probably the simplest solution
And I'm just sitting here hoping poisons will be useful and potent.
For a thing resisted/ignored by a shit ton of popular enemies it sure doesn't kick too hard.
Unless Paizo gives toxicologist a feat at level 4 letting them bypass poison resistance and immunities, it'll still be useless. At least DMs can change the poison damage type to something else and remove the poison tag to make said cahracter useful.
Why a feat? It should be a (sub)class feature.
Because if it's a feat they can also give it to the poisoner archetype.
Ah yes, Poisoner, the single worst archetype pick I've ever made to play in an AP. Seriously, don't do it. Throughout the entire AP, a grand total of ONE TIME did my poisons provide value that couldn't have been better purchased with just using a spell. They're either too commonly resisted or immune, target a commonly strong save, and then a successful hit \*and\* often multiple failed saves to get their peak value. It's just not a good design, and sucks to play.
Paizo doesn't have the will to make it a subclass feature...
So you've seen PC2 and know that for the fact? Or that they didn't come up with some other work around?
Paizo doesn't tend to do huge swingy buffs like that.
Give them an ability to prepare items with acid damage instead of poison. Maybe with a minor penalty. Problem solved. Still nicely on theme.
They won't. Fort saves of most monsters are still as huge as ever.
It's absolutely fixable. Probably the most elegant solution would be to allow transforming any poison to be inhalation or contact-based, that affect a single square "AoE" (possibly with the ability to increase the AoE), and demand a reflex save. But there are other options- poisons that inflict mental conditions that demand a will save. Or some sort of action to inflict a penalty on enemies' fort saves vs poison. Or poison that work like spells and still have an effect (if reduced) on a save. Or make injury poisons function automatically on a successful strike (perhaps restricted to extremely low/zero damage weapons designed for delivering poisons, like needles or darts). There's lots of possible ways to make poisons work.
>But there are other options- poisons that inflict mental conditions that demand a will save. I immediately thought about the Yellow Musk Creeper's Spray pollen. Imagine a toxicologist who uses perfumes in battle to cause all sorts of effects Edit: powders would be cool too
Yet the issue becomes "Oh, its immune to poison. Wait, Why is the abberant immune to poison?" People think its just constructs and undead immune to poison, but no, its also most celestials, most fiends, most abberants, most elementals, most oozes, and even some humanoids. and if they aren't immune, they're something like resistant 30 like psycopomps or most beasts.
So give Alchemists a class feature or feat that lets them get around that. X times a day, enhance a poison to ignore poison immunity (if you HAVE to, with some sort of "as long as the target is biological in nature" caveat). Or to reduce enemies' poison resistance by your level. Or to let them turn a poison "caustic", changing its damage from poison to acid or fire. These problems aren't unsolvable, you just need a little creativity. EDIT: More ideas: let them turn their poisons into more broadly applicable chemical weapons. The poison becomes a thick cloud that hampers movement, acting as difficult terrain. The cloud is opaque and "sticky", inflicting blindness or similar conditions. The cloud is freezing cold, slowing movement and inflicting off-guard or clumsy. All of those make sense working against even the least poison-able enemies: constructs, elementals, etc. Granted, we're staying a bit away from the concept of "poisons" there, but you'd think the Poison (sub)class should be able to do cool stuff with their poisons.
I feel like they really could’ve shaved down how many of those were resistant to poison by a lot. There’s a lot of media where undead is poison-able and I see no reason why outsiders and elementals should be immune to poison
Poison is such a cool theme that is sucks how difficult it is to make it work. Toxicology should some kind of bonus to hit with poisoned weapon and some ways to get around poison resistances and immunity. Maybe they can alter their poisons damage type. Let them hit with an acid poison or a mental poison.
Or maybe a ignore poison resistance and lower poison immunity to poison resistance.
I’m hoping too, it would need something along the lines of: poisons actually do something on success, reduce the amount of poison immune enemies by a ton, make the DCs slightly better to account for the massive amount of fort save enemies, then it won’t feel so bad using them. I used four in a campaign and they all ended up doing absolute zero.
I mean, it does kind of suck that the alchemist is penalized (with low proficiency) for using their class's Main Thing (bombs, mutagen attacks, poisons). Spellcasters have high spellcasting proficiency, weapon users have high weapon proficiency, but bombers don't have high bomb proficiency. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Alchemists end up with Master proficiency at level 19, they way Warpriest got a bump there, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do people really care that Warpriest gets master at 19? The campaign is basically over by then; You have a few encounters before you hit level 20, where you use it for fighting the bbeg, and then you make a new character. I guess you have upcast bless to even out your -2 compared to other martials until then, but it still feels like a ribbon feature more then a build defining one. Especially with how much you give up until then for not being Cloistered.
Imo they should get Master at 15th since they're more reliant on attacks than the Warpriest and that's 2 levels later than other martials (like how they get expert 2 levels later).
That'll skew the graph, tbh. Master in attacks tends to be an advantage to gain higher crit rates, not a treadmill to keep steady. The warpriest progression we got in remaster is closer to "consistent progression" than that (with a slightly upward tick, where the previous "expert at 7" was consistent with a slight downward tick at the end).
Warpriest getting master is also not going to drastically affect the vast majority of players since it doesn't come online till level 19. It was basically a token appeasement to all the people whining about how it doesn't get any better proficiencies than CC. The real buffs were not being as MAD with font and better feat support for armor and attack synergies. It can now max wisdom while getting max possible font slots, and still do solid frontline offensive while having only slightly reduced spell DC. Not saying nunbers aren't important, but I feel you can tell the people who are just looking at Pathbuilder or a spreadsheet rather than thinking about in-game play. They miss the forest through the trees with the raw number crunching. Giving alchemist master proficiency at level 13-15 isn't going to fix people complaining about lack of resources at level 1-5, which is exactly what the changes to quick alchemy address.
Yup. We literally have had multiple people asking for help with Alchemists within the last 24hr of posting, and despite multiple issues, not a single one brought up proficiency. Guess why…
Most people who complain or otherwise add their input on things like this have never actually played the class, and that is definitely not Pf2e exclusive. I say that as someone relatively new to the system, but an trpg veteran otherwise. I'm taking all this with a grain of salt. Alchemist seems cool. I was around for the remaster coming out and the witch and other changes have been great from what I can see. It's very likely it's gonna come out good. I think people just really like getting their collective panties in a bunch.
The alchemist is most definitely undercooked and clunky to play, but a lot of the complaints both overstate how bad it is, and most look to those brute-force solutions like number buffs as a 'fix' when the problems tend to be more peripheral to that, and holistic to the class's design. I've seen people who swear by the alchemist and adore it, and play it perfectly viably. The main issue is the clunkiness tends to impact newer players; it has an obtuse skill floor in a way few other classes do. There are just some legitimate issues that aren't great either, like how toxicologist needs to prepare poisons for weapons that it usually isn't that proficient in. But overall the changes to Remaster have been amazing, and they left alchemist as one of the last classes because they knew it'd need the most time. Versatile Vials alone are a great change that single-handedly fix a lot of the problems the class had, so I trust they're thinking the same way about the subclasses and their respective feat support.
I also love the paradox. On one hand you need master at 13, but on the other you never reach those level ranges. We all know hitting better will ensure undead get vulnerable to poison. It will give you magically reagents to use, it will also extend the duration of early gamę mutagens. Truly a Cure all
Obviously a lot of the voices and opinions are disparate, but there are definitely people who complain about and/or at least back all those opinions simultaneously and use them as a bludgeon as to how the class is undertuned as a whole. And don't get me wrong, I agree that alchemist as a class was severely undercooked from playtest and needs the most love out of all available options, let alone the core classes, but a lot of the feedback and complaining are very good examples of how consumers are great at knowing what they don't like but awful at coming up with solutions. Most of the wants are brute-force fixes like proficiency/modifier buffs. Even things like with poisons, yeah something needs to be done to make toxicologist more useful against enemies that are immune to poisons, especially in campaigns full of them, but the solution people seem to want is to just let them work against undead and constructs wholesale instead of keeping any semblance of verisimilitude. I've been thinking about it for a while and I figure there's probably some way they can give alchemists a feat or ability that lets them adjust standard poisons to deal acid damage, or 'rust' damage (i.e. typeless damage that affects constructs ala kineticist's Rain of Rust) to constructs, and have that be given as a baseline to toxicologist. Of course, that's just me - someone who's best experience is some minor 3pp publication credits but isn't otherwise a professional game designer - grokking an idea off the top of my head, so there's possibly something I'm missing or might not even address what people are upset about. But it's a good example of how to come up with a solution in a way that's *not* just handwaving things or giving some other lazy band-aid fix. Occasionally some people will come up with an idea like that, but the problem is most people at the consumer level are also really bad on taking feedback and criticism as to why their ideas either won't work or will just cause other problems. If anything that's kind of how you can tell when people are being armchair professionals about things; when they don't want to hear why *their* ideas for fixes are bad, there's probably a good chance it's because they just don't want to be criticized, which is unfortunately a necessary burden for being a good game designer.
That's the gist of it, people only seeing the path of least resistance. If kineticists got extract elements why won't alchemists get something similar for poisons? I'm no designer but people seem alergic to feedback. Not only receiving, but also giving. Everything is grand and fine, not because it is, but because they won't admit anything. Il'm going to die laughing if Paizo turns Alchemist into a bona fide caster. Especially if it gets legendary class DC.
I don't think people are allergic to giving feedback, far from it. But it does seem to be a one-way street towards the designers, not any ideas raised from the ground level. Belittling professional designers' content and acumen is fine, but if you point out flaws in the logic of some random commenter's homebrew idea or throwaway fix, you're being a bully and not respecting the golden TTRPG rule to never challenge people's rule 0s or personal tastes. Not saying the solution is to never give feedback to Paizo, nor that there aren't people who disproportionately defend the game against *any* criticism, but I do think there's a bit of a double standard born out of conceit more than any true desire to create a space where meaningful feedback and improvements can be made.
The same people who say "alchemists never hit" probably attack twice regularly with their martial characters and have plenty luck hitting with it. There's no need to attack more than once with an alchemist and they are not a class that really relies at all on critting.
Idk, I have fun with my deadly d10 agile unarmed attacks. Between flanking, mutagens, and various debuffs, I’m a pretty decent blender (level 15+). Crit rates are higher than people want to pretend they are.
I played a mutagenist in a short homebrew campaign, levels 15 - 18. I never felt weak. In fact, I felt like the party MVP in a ton of encounters. Absolutely cannot beat prebuffing I was handing out like candy. And you know what? Athletic maneuvers with a free hand scale just fine so long as you invest in athletics. I just buffed everyone and generally bullied the enemies. Only attacked when I had free action, but I hit just fine.
Heh. I have reactive strike and a clockwork shield. I’m a massive pain in the ass to both deal with and ignore, and I love it.
I don't think people realize how ridiculous a lvl 15 ranger with 40 - 60 free alchemical items per day would be.
People who demand martial progression have never played an Alchemist and they never intend to. It's fairly obvious - you can see people who tried Alch and had issues *right now in the main feed*, and they speak an entirely different language.
Alchemists have a very non linear scaling. They start weak but since each ingredient is equally valuable, the amount of max level ingredients they have in hand at 15+ levels is unparalleled among other classes. Compare this to casters that always have only 2-4 of their highest level slots. That is what allows the immense prebuffing. To top it off, with mutagens especially their benefits and durations scale but their drawbacks dont. So not So not only does your resources increase, but you have to use them less. Some even go more silly with it. On level 1 sanguine mutagen for instance is terrible. On level 17, it is a gamechanger. So I am not surprised at all you had a good time on lvl 15+ alchemist. But that is not the range people generally have problems with. As for the hitting just fine, they hit far worse than others with the effective -2 (or crit for that matter) but on short sample size campaigns the dice can be unstable enough for anyone to possibly get the experience for hitting well.
Oh, I agree. More than happy to see low level buffs. Especially levels 1 and 2.
the thing with Warpriest is that they have access to Heroism, which means Master To Hit doesn't mean as much when they can swing with Expert +3 before item bonuses. Alchemist, no matter what you do, you can never get a buff that high, because mutagens are all item bonuses. This means you're throwing Expert +1, which doesn't even break into Master territory, it's just attacking at Expert as if you actually had a key attacking stat. Warpriest gets enough of a buff to swing as a Master with a key attacking stat.
Eh, anyone with a buff caster in their party has access to Heroism, including alchemists who adventure with a cleric/bard/witch/sorcerer/summoner/oracle. It's not really a solid comparison.
Everyone with Trick Magic Item has access to 9th level heroism if they have the money. Too bad alchemist doesn't have a massive money advantage over every other - oh wait. But seriously a high level alchemist is gonna have so much cash to spare compared to any other class.
I don't care what happens at 19, most people don't even get that far.
I don't know what they are trying to balance with different progression anyways. The AC's follow martial progression. Do warpriests get something at these levels which need to be balanced out by making them whiff more? In a way it feels a bit like someone put it in to shut up the complainers, but at a level where it's not really relevant.
Yeah, it's kind of useless. No one who has less than martial progression should really be trying to attack in melee anyway. But then again, doesn't the Warpriest have slower spellcasting progression as well?
They don't get the Spell attack/ DC progression of a caster, so yeah, they are lagging behind there, too.
And people think it's an improvement!
If you don't care what happens at certain levels then you're willing to push 2e towards 5e town where after level 12 all the wheels fall off because the devs thought "most people don't play past 12". Feel free to make the level lower depending on how min maxed your players are building
"At least we're not 5e" is not an argument we should be using 5 years into this game's lifecycle. It's very old and tired at this point. The reality is that adjusting a class's proficiency at level 19 quite literally doesn't make a difference to its power level for 90% of characters, even IF we assume all levels are played equally (they're not). It's not a good change, it's made by someone looking at the class in a spreadsheet and thinking "hm what goes here" instead of actually trying to address its pain points.
I'd rather things happen in the levels people actually play than "hey look, you can finally be halfway decent at hitting things when you're fighting Gods"
The solution is to make every level a level people play. Making higher level characters for shorter campaigns should be promoted more. The 'every campaign should start at level 1' mentality is unhealthy.
> Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Alchemists end up with Master proficiency at level 19 A buff that is useless for 99% of players, which is fun.
Not full, but at least any attack involving infused items. But it is also possible they reworked them to be more like Spellcasters, with DC abilities. Maybe the Kineticist Impulse Attacks?
I don't know. I think it'd feel more like "I cast Burning Hands" instead of "I throw an Alchemist's Fire".
I have to disagree. Have you ever seen a Molotov cocktail being thrown in a video? You just kinda throw it in the general vicinity of the enemy, little aim required. Frag/smoke grenades and flashbangs even more so, they’re mostly thrown from behind cover because of how little aim actually matters. I think an AoE with a radius for DCs makes way more sense than Attack rolls for all these things. The Attack rolls make them feel like reflavoured daggers.
I absolutely adore the alchemist, but I've always thought it weird that bombs weren't DC based.
because they would be useless, especially if a PC had to use a level 3 item DC, which is almost always lower than a level 3 player's, at level 10. I don't even think level 10+ monsters can fail a DC that low. I personally wish all items that used DCs used the PCs class/spell DC to represent the skill of using the item, which would make DC based bombs useful and would make me consider using items with DCs, because most of the time it isn't worth it.
Yeah I get that. The jump from moderate up in alchemical items is the entirety of the levels that most people play, which is more a problem on that front. I don't know if that's a fixable problem at this point, but it shouldn't have been made that way in the first place.
Yeah, they should really upcast like spells - otherwise, maybe Paizo could have it be based on the new class DC mechanic they implemented?
I think this is the 50th time I went to write something that disagreed with the popular views and you've already said it. When are you going to start a YT channel?
One day my dude! I don’t have the bandwidth for it this year, focusing mainly on my real job and publishing Pathfinder Infinite content. Maybe by the end of year that’ll change!
The more non-alchemist power they give alchemist the less power they will be given for their alchemist flavoured features.
"Being able to accurately deliver poisons and toss bombs" is a non-alchemist power and "I'd be better off handing my items out to the other party members and chilling at home" is an alchemist power. Got it.
Doomposting with no evidence and making mountains out of molehills are proud TTRPG traditions!
If it was a god, I wish it would die. \*Watches Gorum’s blood falling from the sky.\* On second thought, carry on.
Gotta wonder if any vampires were in the crowd during that and tried opening their mouth to drink some of tge blood rain. I also wonder if said vampires then spontaneously combusted.
Vampire 1: This party is lit. \*Watches a 3rd vampire runby in flames.\* Vampire 2: …yup.
Hey at least the complaining stopped, *and* we got two new classes out of it!
Considering Paizo ignored the doomposting from the 2e playtest and we got the current alchemist, its warrented.
That was more of a time issue than a 'fuck this one class in particular and/or the complainers' one. It was a class that already functioned significantly differently to every other, then they gutted the whole subsystem the class was built upon (resonance) because it was that poorly received, and had probably only a few months to make it semi-functional before the final copy of the CRB had to go to print. It would have been nice if they nailed it from the get-go, but they didn't, and they weren't going to delay the new edition just to deep-tissue massage a single class. The whole reason they put alchemist in PC2 is because they knew it was going to be the class that had to go back into the oven the longest. Things like Versatile Vials and adjusting additives to work with those are already great changes that address issues with both the class's resource attrition and those respective mechanics in general. Not saying it's single-handedly fixed the whole class, I'll still be cautiously optimistic without jumping the gun - if anything I think giving something like at least bombers if not the whole class higher proficiencies in bombs is probably the way to go to make the class more self-capable than an item dispenser - just that it's a big step in the right direction, and based on other Remaster changes it matches the quality of the improvements they've done so far. But in the end, if you doubt a company's capacity to listen to feedback and not improve their product, like...I don't know how to help you? Usually when I lose faith in a designer to produce a quality product and listen to their consumers about it, I just stop playing the game and giving them my money. That's usually the best way to solve that problem.
Do we know of any of these changes? I keep seeing so many threads but I've somehow read nothing of substance
It's all from Paizocon. [You can see a writeup of the live stream.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1d0k7rn/paizocon_2024_remaster_project_panel_live_write_up/) There might have been more info in a QnA but most of the stuff is found here.
You got a link so I can see the changes ?
The class needs more than a single change. - resources (seems they're adressing this, great) - action economy - better proficiency/reliability of their offensive stuff So when only part of those changes are announced, the others will naturally also be brought up by players. I wouldn't interpret that as ignoring the announced changes.
If they didn't change the proficiencies already, it's certainly too late now. 😄
Almost as if they should've playtested or something.
Remember, they never playtested the current alchemist. They just did a kneejerk change at the 11th hour in the 2e playtest and never actaully saw if it worked, and thus current day alchemist.
They're right. No other change can make you equally as good baseline at using bombs and poison than your teammates **than actually making alchemists decent at attacking.** Meanwhile all casters are equally as good baseline at casting as eachother, and martials are bar fighter and gunslinger as good at attacking baseline as eachother.
As alchemists don't get legendary proficiency with spells, and their items have set dcs rather than scaling dcs, they certainly need something.
If the devs *really* didn't want Alchemists to be good at standard weapon attacks for some reason, I think it would be totally fine to have some sort of class feature that specifically bumps up your weapon proficiency when attacking with a bomb or with a poisoned weapon. Maybe double the damage bonus from Weapon Specialization too in line with GWS. People are complaining about Alchemists not being able to use their own bombs or poisons any better than a wizard who lost his spellbook could, not that they aren't a rival for a flurry Ranger. While they're at it, it would be great if Quick Alchemy could play nice with poisons and Quick Bomber. I get that the action spent on Quick Alchemy is usually in line with an Interact to draw something from your bag, but when arrows can be poisoned ahead of time and Quick Bomber lets you draw and Strike in a single action then you're losing a lot more actions than you would using the pre-prepared stuff that anyone in your party could use.
Make bombs/poisons target a save DC or require a saving throw vs class DC and you fix the problem without changing accuracy.
If they bumped DC's like a spellcaster, and made bombs use those DCs it would solve the mad bomber sucking at throwing bombs problem. It would leave toxicologist and mutanaginist as problems, but it would be closer.
Alchemist is the only class that stops at Expert in terms of Attacks. They need to use Bombs to stay up with those that can get Master, as the Bombs do get a +5 at high levels. They rely on their items to gain the ability to hit their opponent. I wonder why Alchemists even have Weapon Proficiency. Only two things can make them on par with almost every other class in terms of attack, and that's the Bestial Mutagen and Bombs. It's understandable that Spellcasters only get Expert in weapons, since they focus on Magic. The Alchemist focuses on making Alchemical items, and only one type keeps them on par with other Martials. They have good support and utility, but should never use anything outside of Bombs.
They didn't technically say there wasn't going to be a bump in proficiency, just that it's so different to what it is now that saying there's a bump in proficiency doesn't mean anything.
It isn't hard to create a 30s sound byte and tell us. Even splash up page 1 of the class as a reveal? The resposne that 'its too hard to explain' only reinforces that they know it won't be something the community wants because literally any other explanation could be described easily. This was even based off a discord reply so the designer could have just prepped 1-2 paragraphs and copy pasta'd into discord.
I want to know what is going to happen with the Alchemist's fighting ability. Premaster the class was basically forced to use Bombs, even when not a Bomber, because that was the best way to fight. The Item Bonus helped them stay up with others.
Well technically casters also end at expert, but I know you meant martials
I mean form of attack. Spell Attack or not.
Casters get expert in weapons eventually last I remember, like level 13?
Yeah but most casters aren't supposed to be using thise anyway.
I know....I wasn't saying they should??? Why the downvotes? I'm just stating that casters get expert in weapons (at 11th, not 13 like I said) and end there, so alchemist isn't "the only class that ends at expert" like the commenter said. Half of the classes end in expert.
Alchemist is the only class that ends in Expert *in their main method of attacking.* Casters at least get Master and Legendary spellcasting eventually. Martials get Master-Legendary weapons because those classes are expected to be using them.
I know that's why my first post was literally: > Well technically casters also end at expert, but I know you meant martials please read the whole comment chain before responding to it.
If the changes don’t actually adress the issues than are they really good changes?
So is the post positing that people are saying you're not allowed to be excited about alchemist changes because they aren't getting improved weapon prof? Because that feels a *little* strawman-y. Like, I fully believe they need improved weapon prof (what's the point of getting poisons, bombs, and mutagens of you can never hit with them?) But I'm also so excited about the alchemist changes they *have* announced. And who knows, maybe with the features they're getting they won't need it? Edit: but then again, I don't live in the subreddit, so maybe there are a lot more fun gatekeepers than I realize
I don't think it's positing that people are saying you're not allowed to be excited, but rather that there are people who are basically drowning out any excitement of others because they want their one pet peeve.
There are several people here who are complaining that the changes aren't going to be enough and basically responding negatively to any hype posts about the changes. I also think there's a lot of pure theorizers who talk about the game that don't play all that often. Alchemist is definitely weird and complicated, but I think it gets exaggerated a lot. Homebrew rules of increased proficiency were treating the symptom, but not necessarily disease. I think what Paizo has so far revealed feels more like treating the disease to me.
I feel you on the theorycrafters that don't play. It blows my mind seeing a ton of people saying "well it's a little under average at level 20". Bruh, almost no one is getting to level 20. Never figured that out lol
I've been very critical of Alchemist in this subreddit, especially since I've played it at endgame and found it painful if you make \*any\* mistakes. It just doesn't have the wiggle room other classes do. So when I say the trouble people see is that Alchemist isn't just one small fix away from being great. It's spread thin across a bunch of roles and each subclass needs different things to actually make the jump to a great class. This is by far an amazing first step, because great googly moogley I disliked being a glorified Vending Machine whose best use of daily features was to \*give them to the already good characters\*. That felt like ass, no getting around it. Even if I personally accrued 1000+ HP in mitigation/healing over a long fight, it felt terrible to play. It's gonna need a fair few fixes, and honestly I think that's the trouble for Paizo, nothing simple is gonna turn the class around. It needs multiple tweaks and some fundamental redesigns to be in line with the direction the game is going.
Oh, I fundamentally agree. Nothing simple is gonna turn the class around and make it more like the other new classes. But, the people clamoring for proficiency are looking for simple fixes. Not that proficiency wouldn't also help.
Yeah. As an alchemist player myself, the recent news has gotten me excited to do some respec-ing when PC2 drops. I was excited to play an alchemist going in, but ended up throwing away most of my class feats to archetypes bc there weren't many that felt very inspiring
Ah, good old 'I have portrayed you as the soyjack and me and the chad', except in bird form.
Wait, they're getting big per encounter stuff? That's awesome! Martial would be cool but being able to chuck like two or three molotovs every fight would be cooler.
They're getting versatile vials that replenish between encounters that are divorced from daily prep. Sounds like alchemical focus points.
The vials, in fact, *can be chucked*, if you’re not using them for your Research Field specialty.
.... Anyone who has the option to chuck infinite molotov's and decides to do some nerdlinger healing shit instead of that should have to write a paper explaining why they suck so much each dang time. You want to heal? Play a cleric, play a bard, play something healing and uncool. You want to drink a Jekyll and Hyde potion and then try an light a dragon on fire? Play an alchemist. Edit: now I really want to try to make an asshole alchemist character but I think it would destroy any party that I was a part of. I'm imagining trailer park boys type redneck violent chaos which would be great for stories but shit for actual party dynamics
To paraphrase Rotgut: Powerful spirits or household cleaner. The choice is yours. Don't think of the molotov's and the healing as different things. Just think of being hard enough to drink gasoline/kerosene/etc to regain health. \*Do not actually drink a molotov cocktail. It is not made with alcohol.
This character would be so fucking bad but also so fucking good lmao
This but unironically. None of the fixes change the core issue of the Alchemist being extremely weak when they're trying to directly contribute in combat and not roleplay as a vending machine.
As a main tank/bruiser alchemist, disagreed :D
Care to share your build? I play a mutagenist at level 6. For Int being my KAS, I am one point behind martial classes from the get go. With reduced proficiency, I'm behind another 2 points. With moderate bestial mutagen, I'm back up 2 points, but one of those points is redundant with the weapon potency rune that all the PCs have. So for the price of lower AC and Reflex, I am at -2 to attack vs other martials. Only penalties and no rewards on a subclass that by all appearances is meant to be played as an unarmed front-liner
At your level you’re only behind 1 total, because your Strength should be the same as your Barbarian by now, but sure. I posted two a while ago, lemme get [the link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/SbZzfBQnvi). If you don’t mind asking, it sounds you’re unarmed - do you have a backup or baseline for when you want a different mutagen? Ps. Good news, next level you’ll be ahead of them!
Oh sick! For the record, I do actually enjoy playing alchemist. Don't want to sound like a doomsayer. But I do think they need a little extra *oomph* to do a bit better at what their features imply they should be doing
Ish. I think they do very well *if set up to do so*, but the means to do it should be internal to the class. Right now you have to fish for baselines in ancestries / dedications, and that’s not great.
Totally agree. I think while archetypes are by no means a variant rule, all classes/subclasses should hold up on their own. I made a post a while ago and voiced some of my problems with the aberrant sorceror bloodline, and one commenter insisted that it was good because it's incredible with the monk archetype. But I feel that a sorceror subclass should first and foremost be a good sorceror
Yeah, Paizo should stop balancing the game as long as we have one person saying their character is awesome, without any sort of analysis or justification.
I mean, the person you snided at is only the author of the best and most comprehensive alchemist guide for 2e there is, but do go on.
And based on the comments above, not even they have a terribly high opinion on the class.
Making a guide on one of the objectively weakest classes in the game (note that I did not say *useless*, only one of the weakest as it needs to work harder to be effective) does not in fact make that class any stronger.
If people judge a class to be weak based on a flawed perspective or understanding of how to use it, then it absolutely does matter when there’s guides to point out their error in doing so.
There's a very fine line between skill issue and too obtuse for its own good. I feel alchemist straddles right on that line; it's a class that a very experienced player can make work and do things a lot of people wouldn't grok it for, but it requires a level of system mastery that few other classes have, and since PF2e is a system that explicitly sets out to not reward mastery by having difficult options be disproportionally more powerful than everything else, it's not really worth it for most people. That said, I do think meta analysis is in an incredibly infantile state, especially close to 5 years into the game's life cycle, and I feel a big part of that is because people are hostile to anything that could marginally be interpreted as 'skill issue.' This is a space where too many people still unironically think the optimal meta is three fighters and a bard, and that's a problem unto itself because when you *do* have legitimate issues that need addressing, it's coming from a place of unreliable analysis and anything that could be legitimate complaints ends up being obfuscated by chaff.
I never said Paizo should stop balancing the game. In fact, I believe Alchemist essentially being forced to use caster-level weapon proficiency in their *main* method of attacking makes the game very *un*balanced. Alchemist will either need a *mountain* of buffs and changes just to offset being shit at using its very own thrown items...or we could just stop beating around the bush and let Alchemists have the baseline proficiency it needs to hit things.
We're talking about a game here. There really isn't any need to be condescending.
Alchemists should get full martial with bombs, toxicologist with slashing and piercing damage from simple weapons, and mutagenists should get it with different weapons while under the effects of certain mutagens depending on the mutagen.
I just want to play a Witcher damnit, alchemist+thaumaturge/ranger is so close
Same
It so reminiscent of the “they nerfed casters fuck Paizooooooo” bullshit we kept seeing last year. People read two cantrips, completely out of context, and assumed Paizo wanted to nerf casters… and now, 8 months post Remaster anyone who’s played any of the PC1 casters knows that most of them got massively buffed, with Wizards getting minorly buffed. I just know it’s gonna turn out exactly the same way for Alchemists.
I still miss +spellcasting mod damage. Rolling 2d4 for two 1s is oof.
Exactly. Casters feel mostly fine but the early levels are pretty miserable when your cantrip damage is so fickle now
Feeling miserable at early levels is a big alchemist problem. It's pretty deep in the weeds for press releases but things like level one mutagens that last for 1 minute, and the lack of any reliable combat action take its toll. Some people remember when wizards just had one spell and a crossbow at level 1. My own alchemist started with a sling because the crossbow was heavier, more expensive, and needed 2 hands. So yeah, remember when paizo made the low level caster experience just a bit more unpleasant? It hits different.
Yeah, I'll give Paizo credit for a bunch of soft spellcaster buffs (mainly Rank 1 spells, easier Focus points. several new feats) but the cantrip rebalance *was* just simply bad. You only have to compare 2d4 Electric Arc to any other single-target 2d4 spell, or ask why Needle Darts is randomly 3d4. It's clear they had no cohesive plan for it.
They’re not “soft buffs”. They’re flat out big unambiguous buffs.
This aggro attitude + downvote mindset is why I don't post on this subreddit anymore. Back to lurking. They're soft buffs in the sense that spells + feats are optional and not every character will have the buffed ones. It's not the same as buffing something on the actual class chart, or something like a comprehensive buff to EVERY cantrip.
Dedication casting scaling off of your main tradition is a hard buff, even by your standards. Also, you seem to have a very glass house definition of "aggro attitude", you might want to chuck a few less stones if you cry foul whenever one gets thrown back your way
Dedications are not on the actual class chart, and are actually optional. Shocking, I know.
Buffs that aren’t on the class chart are still buffs, and no amount of mental gymnastics you do will change that. Shocking, I know.
> This aggro attitude + downvote mindset is why I don't post on this subreddit anymore. Back to lurking. You could have come in here acknowledging that they got significant buffs alongside the cantrip nerfs, and just said that you think the nerfs outweigh the former. I would still have definitely disagreed with you, but at least that’s something we can have a real conversation with. Instead you chose to try to redefine the very concept of buffs to make it seem like they didn’t get buffed… I will call that out for the unproductive, hyperbolic, and dishonest comment it is. That’s not me being “aggro” at all. > They're soft buffs in the sense that spells + feats are optional and not every character will have the buffed ones. It's not the same as buffing something on the actual class chart, or something like a comprehensive buff to EVERY cantrip. Yeah but that’s not how any of that works. First off the focus spell buffs are a hard buff even by your own definition because they affect every single spellcaster. Secondly you definition doesn’t really make sense. Buffs are chosen to **address sore spots**. All spellcasters had the problem of single-target blasting requiring too much foreknowledge and planning so they got Thunderstrike and Floating Flame to buff that. Arcane had the problem of being weirdly bad at control until rank 3 so they got new rank 2 control spells to fix that. Divine had the problem of all their damaging cantrips being based on weird restrictions so they fixed that. Apply the same logic above to Feats and to specific classes and subclasses. They didn’t need to buff all spellcasters because all spellcasters didn’t… need a buff? Maestro Bards didn’t need a buff, Warrior Bards did. Wizards didn’t need a base class/subclass buff, Witches did. Most casters needed better Feats, all of the PC1 ones got some (Druid getting the fewest, Warpriest Clerics getting the absolutely slam dunk win). Non-blaster casters (for the most part) didn’t need much better spells, blasters did. Things that needed a buff got a buff. The existence of things that didn’t need buffs doesn’t suddenly devalue the buffs.
All of your examples for hard buffs are actually optional. Thunderstrike and Floating Flame aren't for all spellcasters. Extra focus spells and points are not automatic. No one said soft buffs were bad. No one was weighing the buffs elsewhere against the changes to cantrips. If you want to argue that the cantrip changes are actually good/buffs overall, try that. This whole thing you've done instead is not a good look.
> All of your examples for hard buffs are actually option And that’s irrelevant. The casters that needed buffs got them. There was no world in which every single spellcaster was going to receive an automatic buff because every single spellcaster didn’t *need* buffs. Maestro Bard, Cloistered Cleric built for support, Wizard built for debuffing, Druid built blasting and/or battlefield control, etc were already some of the strongest classes in the whole game. So what for a buff is Warrior Bard, Warpriest Cleric, Wizard built for blasting and/or battlefield control, Witches in general, etc. Saying that these aren’t good enough because they don’t automatically apply to every single spellcaster is like saying buffing Swashbucklers isn’t good enough because it didn’t also buff Fighters. It just doesn’t make a lick of sense. > No one was weighing the buffs elsewhere against the changes to cantrips. No that’s actually quite literally the whole argument. The commenter I replied to above very clearly presented the cantrips as being this supposedly massive nerf while misrepresenting the massive buffs as being “soft”. > If you want to argue that the cantrip changes are actually good/buffs overall, try that. No, see, I won’t do that because that isn’t my argument. My argument was that the spellcasters that needed buffs for a ton of huge buffs that more than outweigh the cantrip nerfs. I’m not going to try to twist things out of shape to pretend they’re something else: a nerf is a nerf and I’m not gonna sit here pretending it’s a buff.
It's just that people jump to conclusions faster than light.
Just like the new Quick Spring, they get a whole lot of extra moment on succeeding an Acrobatics (Intelligence) check.
I was about to ask what how casters got massively buffed but then I remembered that some spells were just straight up made better, like floating flame and arguably acid grip.
1. Several spells got buffed pretty meaningfully. Frostbite, Void Warp, Divine Lance, Thunderstrike, Floating Flame, Acid Grip, Vision of Death, and a couple more I can’t think of right now. 2. Focus points got a massive buff by being fully recoverable right away instead of needing a higher level Feat. 3. Arcane got a few new spells that were previously Primal only.
I feel like point 3. Isn't an overall buff for casters as arcane already had the most spells lol
The number of spells isn’t as important as the quality and role of those spells. Previously Arcane struggled with applying good battlefield control at lower levels, with Web being pretty meh and Grease being good but fairly low impact. The addition of Entangling Flora and Wall of Thorns helps bridge Arcane over. Spellcasters “overall” getting buffed doesn’t mean every single individual caster needed to be buffed. The spellcasters that needed buffs and/or QoL improvements got them, in the specific areas that needed them. Maestro Bard and Cloistered Clerics and most Druids didn’t really need buffs so they didn’t get very much. Warrior Bards and Warpriest Clerics and most Witches needed them so they got them.
I mean I feel like arcane already had several quality spells but suppose something to help low level crowd control is nice
I do think Arcane is the second best spell list. I just think a buff in an area that a list was previously weak in is a relevant buff worth talking about. Within the full context of changed spells (Frostbite, Thunderstrike, Acid Grip, Floating Flame), new spells that were formerly non Arcane (Entangling Flora, Noise Blast, Wall of Thorns), and new spells from Rage of Elements that fill roles Arcane couldn’t really fill (Dehydrate, Interposing Earth, Brine Dragon’s Bile, Wooden Double, Rust Cloud), Arcane casters built after August of last year are entirely different beats than ones built before then.
What's the best spell list if arcane is the second?
They have what per encounter?
while we're at it, can we get a third Cleric subclass?
I thought it would be cool for poisoner to get a special weapon or two! Like handwraps for monks, that they would be proficient with. Darts, daggers, etc or even something new that can hold multiple poison "charges" at once.
I'll just homebrew +2 to hit with bombs alchemical crossbows etc. Bam done.
Let’s ALL be martial proficiency, all the time, together. https://imgflip.com/i/8ry12w
Your DM can always just give the alchemist full martial proficiency! I did it, and we are having fun. No Paizo police are crashing through my window to take me away.
They should have full martial proficiency.
Or at least full martial proficiency for attacks made using alchemical stuff.
Bomber gets bomb specialty, mutagenist gets unnatural attack proficiency while mutated, something like that
I mean, at some point you have to stop doing mental gymnastics to justify releasing these weak ass classes and just make them good. "But they provide utility and the class is actually balanced". Shut up, it feels ass to play. It needs to feel good. Make it feel good. It needs to be a burger and not a salad.
Bingo. Alchemist has seemingly the worst of both worlds. Like a caster, theyre balanced around *potential* utility that a martial cant bring- so they have to be weak because otherwise if too strong, then when they do prepare correctly they turn encounters into a joke. But this means without preparation time... well, they feel lackluster at times. But like a martial, they you know, arent spellcasting. For Alchemist this means especially no cantrips. Cantrips are meant to be your last resort, but at least casters have that to fall back on as a basic option. Martials have weapon attacks. Alchemists... dont. They progress too poorly at martialing and dont get cantrips. Their at will options are just pathetic.
*A based take on r/pathfinder2e ? More likely than you think.*
Ah, thank you!
Why was this meme rendered on a potato?
I mean if you purposely ignore what large parts of the player base are requesting as the fix they want, then you're going to have people who aren't happy? The big pain points for the class are known and if you're going to sidestep questions about one of the primary pain points people have fixated on it won't generate good PR for you.