Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[Celtavian]

It's good to see the APG makes the Alchemist somewhat more viable. My player who tried one was very disappointed in the original build options.

Other types of alchemists besides bomber still seem pretty weak. Bomber is the only that seemed good on paper and it takes a while to get going as you gain more formulas to allow you to expand your damage options to exploit weaknesses or bypass resistances.

 

[Ancalagon]

See I wrote an alchemist class for the GLOG, a "low level, low powered retro-style d&d hack with some cool features and a new magic system".

Here was the "formulae" list:

1. Fire Projector

2. Stone Bread

3. Celestial Perfume of the Seven Planets

4. Smoke Pot

5. Vitriol

6. Theriac

7. The Great Petard

8. Sword of St Germain

9. Mercury invisibility ring

10. Killing Miasma

11. Homunculus

12. Philosopher's stone

Is my "basic" alchemist more versatile than the PF2 alchemist?

 

[Celtavian]

See I wrote an alchemist class for the GLOG, a "low level, low powered retro-style d&d hack with some cool features and a new magic system".

Here was the "formulae" list:

1. Fire Projector

2. Stone Bread

3. Celestial Perfume of the Seven Planets

4. Smoke Pot

5. Vitriol

6. Theriac

7. The Great Petard

8. Sword of St Germain

9. Mercury invisibility ring

10. Killing Miasma

11. Homunculus

12. Philosopher's stone

Is my "basic" alchemist more versatile than the PF2 alchemist?

Not sure what all those things do. Alchemist can do nearly every type of damage now. Their elixirs can do a lot of different things. They have healing. They do have a philosopher stone. Definitely a class for people who like to think outside the box and try to do different things. You can have a familiar that does some interesting things. I'd say go over and give it a read. See what you think.

 

[nevin]

Makes sense they are weak then Pathfinder has always hated flexible characters. They want everything on the rails.

 

[willrali]

Makes sense they are weak then Pathfinder has always hated flexible characters. They want everything on the rails.

How’s that?

 

[Retreater]

Makes sense they are weak then Pathfinder has always hated flexible characters. They want everything on the rails.

There's always been so many options that you can build completely trash tier characters, if you want. There are prestige classes and archetypes that are very flavorful or have a smattering of abilities of different classes. I think anyone who's ever played PF would heartily disagree with you.

 

[Philip Benz]

If a "flexible" character is strictly better at doing a thing (like fighting, spellcasting, using skills, etc) than a class that is dedicated to doing that one thing, then everyone will choose the "flexible" character that has greater breadth.

It seems very logical to me for a "flexible" character to be less good at doing all the various things he can do.

This said, the alchemist very much has his own "thing" to do - alchemy, bombs and mutagens - but IMHO our pals at Paizo were too afraid of making a bombing powerhouse, so toned down all those class-specific niches, just a little too far.

Which of course has little to do with the original question of this thread.

 

[CapnZapp]

Which of course has little to do with the original question of this thread.

Do you have any remaining questions @Ancalagon regarding those minutes 12-20?

 

[Ancalagon]

Do you have any remaining questions @Ancalagon regarding those minutes 12-20?

Pretty much. I'll reply re alchemist later today or tomorrow

 

[Vael]

So, I'm about to play my first PF2 adventure. And I figured, while I'm not a PF2 fan, I might as well play something I can't play in 5e and I like magical classes. So, my initial draws were Alchemist, Witch or Oracle.

This thread has kinda scared me off of Alchemist, so I'd like some opinions: How are the Witch or Oracle? I'm leaning Witch, but I have seen reviews that suggest that I'd just be better off playing Wizard. Also, feel free to change my mind on the Alchemist.