@Haravikk I don't disagree that alchemist isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but it still doesn't even come close to stacking up to other subclasses.
Elixers are not good. Yes the effects are fine, yes some of them replicate the kind of effects you get from concentration spells, but this doesn't make them good or even adequate. The mechanics of them are just too clunky and in application.
-You need to make them ahead of time and then also drink them ahead of time in order to not waste actions in combat. -Making them ahead of time means you might guess wrong on what you need -Taking them ahead of time is only feasible if you are the ones initiating combat or possibly waste their duration. -They still take spell slots, you are a half caster and don't get many of those
It's just not a well thought out subclass, if you have any doubt just consider that Alchemist can't even use the arcane focus infusions: "Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus, you gain a bonus to one roll of the spell. That roll must restore hit points or be a damage roll that deals acid, fire, necrotic, or poison damage, and the bonus equals your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1)."
"Enhanced Arcane Focus
Item: A rod, staff or wand (requires attunement)
While holding this item, a creature gains +1 bonus to spell attack rolls. In addition, the creature ignores half cover when making a spell attack.
The bonus increases to +2 when you reach 10th level in this class."
All I see again is opinions, when I am having an absolute ball with my Alchemist. I guess it just comes down to how people like to play the game, because I cannot validly see an argument for aLcHEmiSt iS de WuRSt sUbcLasS eVa.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
All these anti-alchemist sentiments must be purely from a DPS front line perspective. I am a utility/support player and have DM'ed for a player whom usually plays healers but wanted a break from cleric and in both cases, they alchemists are consistently the MVPs for their support and utility. Don't get me wrong, dealing the most (or at least equal) damage every turn is great but handing off my SSI to my tiny servant or homunculus, next casting Sanctuary on myself and then the help action for the melees with SSI Cure Wounds for 2d8+10 for the remaining 9 turns is just so satisfying.
You just pointed out that the most effective alchemist build is a healbot. Are there other options? Also how often does lesser restoration even come up? And most of the effects allow a save at the end of the affected character's turn. I can see a couple of instances where using your action may be worth it, but the majority of the time the character is going to make the save in 1 or 2 rounds.
All I see again is opinions, when I am having an absolute ball with my Alchemist. I guess it just comes down to how people like to play the game, because I cannot validly see an argument for aLcHEmiSt iS de WuRSt sUbcLasS eVa.
I think the worst subclass every still goes to way of the four elements monk as the subclass actively prevents the utilization of base class abilities. However, alchemist is definitely in the running for 2nd or 3rd place.
All these anti-alchemist sentiments must be purely from a DPS front line perspective. I am a utility/support player and have DM'ed for a player whom usually plays healers but wanted a break from cleric and in both cases, they alchemists are consistently the MVPs for their support and utility. Don't get me wrong, dealing the most (or at least equal) damage every turn is great but handing off my SSI to my tiny servant or homunculus, next casting Sanctuary on myself and then the help action for the melees with SSI Cure Wounds for 2d8+10 for the remaining 9 turns is just so satisfying.
You just pointed out that the most effective alchemist build is a healbot. Are there other options? Also how often does lesser restoration even come up? And most of the effects allow a save at the end of the affected character's turn. I can see a couple of instances where using your action may be worth it, but the majority of the time the character is going to make the save in 1 or 2 rounds.
Yeah and I don't see a problem with any of the things you tried to point out about my statement. There's no other healers in my party, run by a hardened 'save or suck' DM who misses the brutal grim of 1st and 2nd. Our party is constantly in danger of death and we get ailments all the time. Your point was "likely to save in 1 or 2 rounds", well they're not even spending a single round with a condition with the alchemist around. Our DM is often muttering "stupid f**kin' artificer" with a mirthful grin (an before anyone says the old last resort of 'well your DM needs to do better', nah, he does great. One of the best DMs Ive ever had, his campaigns are freshingly challenging, of the Tomb of Horrors generation). Playing the straight utility, party protector/buffer without worrying about dealing damage (as that is not how the subclass is built) makes this subclass pretty dang fun and rewarding and not once did I feel like I wasn't keeping up with the fighter or the rogue or paladin in terms of party contribution.
I posit that this subclass (and many of the other ones people rag on) is just as good as the rest for their base class*, especially if you're into the RP themes and narrative flavours that it can evoke (if you have that kind of mind). If you're a player that relies on "dis subclass has big boom boom, see it says it der on the page" and doesn't look past the DPS or the spotlight effect, well then maybe the problem isn't the subclass or the DM...
*Granted, I will agree with you on the Way of Four Elements. Tried to play it out once to see if I can make it work and ended up not using any of the subclass options haha
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
It always bothers me when a criticism of a sub-class is that it isn't effortless to play when all you do is just rush headfirst into every fight and combat is 99% of your game; that's not really the sub-class' fault.
100% this, all the time, every time. Just look at forums the moment any one says "-multi class dip into-" the spotlight players scream in unison "HEXBLADE!". Never any love for Tomelock, let alone any other class' dip option haha
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
It always bothers me when a criticism of a sub-class is that it isn't effortless to play when all you do is just rush headfirst into every fight and combat is 99% of your game; that's not really the sub-class' fault.
100% this, all the time, every time. Just look at forums the moment any one says "-multi class dip into-" the spotlight players scream in unison "HEXBLADE!". Never any love for Tomelock, let alone any other class' dip option haha
You just hit the nail in the head, most sessions or combat are too direct for lack of creativity or laziness. I understand that adding a lot of status conditions is not cool, but hey, there are spells for those things so let them shine, remind the players that bad things happens in different ways. I bet you that if as a DM you pop the things that ppl barely use out of complexity or laziness your session would be more engaging since they will have to deal with it in new ways since its strangely fresh.
This in turn will make ur players look at the support classes in a new light and make them more fun and wanted.
I feel like, out of all of the Artificer Subclasses, the Alchemist could have had a unique infusion. Probably something similar to Replicate Magic Item, where different potions are available at different levels, and can be taken multiple times.
All these anti-alchemist sentiments must be purely from a DPS front line perspective. I am a utility/support player and have DM'ed for a player whom usually plays healers but wanted a break from cleric and in both cases, they alchemists are consistently the MVPs for their support and utility. Don't get me wrong, dealing the most (or at least equal) damage every turn is great but handing off my SSI to my tiny servant or homunculus, next casting Sanctuary on myself and then the help action for the melees with SSI Cure Wounds for 2d8+10 for the remaining 9 turns is just so satisfying.
You just pointed out that the most effective alchemist build is a healbot. Are there other options? Also how often does lesser restoration even come up? And most of the effects allow a save at the end of the affected character's turn. I can see a couple of instances where using your action may be worth it, but the majority of the time the character is going to make the save in 1 or 2 rounds.
Yeah and I don't see a problem with any of the things you tried to point out about my statement. There's no other healers in my party, run by a hardened 'save or suck' DM who misses the brutal grim of 1st and 2nd. Our party is constantly in danger of death and we get ailments all the time. Your point was "likely to save in 1 or 2 rounds", well they're not even spending a single round with a condition with the alchemist around. Our DM is often muttering "stupid f**kin' artificer" with a mirthful grin (an before anyone says the old last resort of 'well your DM needs to do better', nah, he does great. One of the best DMs Ive ever had, his campaigns are freshingly challenging, of the Tomb of Horrors generation). Playing the straight utility, party protector/buffer without worrying about dealing damage (as that is not how the subclass is built) makes this subclass pretty dang fun and rewarding and not once did I feel like I wasn't keeping up with the fighter or the rogue or paladin in terms of party contribution.
And that's fine if that's your play style, but when I played, I wanted to do more than cast faerie fire and healing word.
I posit that this subclass (and many of the other ones people rag on) is just as good as the rest for their base class*, especially if you're into the RP themes and narrative flavours that it can evoke (if you have that kind of mind). If you're a player that relies on "dis subclass has big boom boom, see it says it der on the page" and doesn't look past the DPS or the spotlight effect, well then maybe the problem isn't the subclass or the DM...
*Granted, I will agree with you on the Way of Four Elements. Tried to play it out once to see if I can make it work and ended up not using any of the subclass options haha
I re-flavored every spell and infusion and still felt mostly useless.
What is delivered via the sub-class is bad. A random elixir that isn't what is needed 82% of the time, basically a first level spell and doesn't scale. Then in order to use it again, you have to start spending those base class abilities, while two of the other three sub-classes just have their abilities and the last (artillerist) gets a use for free for an hour and when they have to spend get another hour of use not a first level spell.
And that's fine if that's your play style, but when I played, I wanted to do more than cast faerie fire and healing word.
I re-flavored every spell and infusion and still felt mostly useless.
What is delivered via the sub-class is bad. A random elixir that isn't what is needed 82% of the time, basically a first level spell and doesn't scale. Then in order to use it again, you have to start spending those base class abilities, while two of the other three sub-classes just have their abilities and the last (artillerist) gets a use for free for an hour and when they have to spend get another hour of use not a first level spell.
And still, all I’m seeing is personal opinion of your own experience not working the way you’d like. It is not “bad”. If I and others on this thread are saying it does work, has worked in their experiences AND they’ve enjoyed playing it, then that kinda says more about your interpretation/control over the the subclass. I mean ultimately, isn’t the golden rule of DnD “are you having fun? (yes) then you’re doing it right”. I mean, your argument of the subclass being “bad” is like someone saying ‘manual transmission is bad because I like automatics ... and I only know how to drive automatic’, or for an example closer to the game we’re talking about, ‘pact magic is dumb because I only like to use a spell book’. I could be coming back at this whole ‘alchemist is bad because something something random elixir something something don’t take my spell slots!’ with arguments like ‘artillerist is bad because all it does is pew pew and not that well, so why would I want to play a blaster-with-a-pet class when I could just play a wizard or ranger' or ‘battle-smith is bad because all it does is bash n smite and not that well when I could just play a paladin' ... but why the heck would I do that, what does my opinion on that prove! It'd be like saying the 'alchemist is just a healer and not that good at it'.
N.B. I do love the Battlesmith, btw, would love to play one one day, but after I’ve hung up my plaguey-boy’s mask for a while. I was just doing the devil's advocate thing.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
I feel like, out of all of the Artificer Subclasses, the Alchemist could have had a unique infusion. Probably something similar to Replicate Magic Item, where different potions are available at different levels, and can be taken multiple times.
A great idea, to be sure. I dont even think they need a unique infusion, just a subclass ability that says something like
"When you take the Replicate Magic Item infusion, you can replicate the effects of a potion available in the Dungeon Master's Guide (or another source at the DM's discretion). To do so, you must have a vial, bottle, or other container to target with the infusion. This infusion ends early after the potion is consumed. Your artificer level determines the rarity of potions that you can replicate this way (insert restrictions etc). "
And that's fine if that's your play style, but when I played, I wanted to do more than cast faerie fire and healing word.
I re-flavored every spell and infusion and still felt mostly useless.
What is delivered via the sub-class is bad. A random elixir that isn't what is needed 82% of the time, basically a first level spell and doesn't scale. Then in order to use it again, you have to start spending those base class abilities, while two of the other three sub-classes just have their abilities and the last (artillerist) gets a use for free for an hour and when they have to spend get another hour of use not a first level spell.
And still, all I’m seeing is personal opinion of your own experience not working the way you’d like. It is not “bad”. If I and others on this thread are saying it does work, has worked in their experiences AND they’ve enjoyed playing it, then that kinda says more about your interpretation/control over the the subclass. I mean ultimately, isn’t the golden rule of DnD “are you having fun? (yes) then you’re doing it right”. I mean, your argument of the subclass being “bad” is like someone saying ‘manual transmission is bad because I like automatics ... and I only know how to drive automatic’, or for an example closer to the game we’re talking about, ‘pact magic is dumb because I only like to use a spell book’. I could be coming back at this whole ‘alchemist is bad because something something random elixir something something don’t take my spell slots!’ with arguments like ‘artillerist is bad because all it does is pew pew and not that well, so why would I want to play a blaster-with-a-pet class when I could just play a wizard or ranger' or ‘battle-smith is bad because all it does is bash n smite and not that well when I could just play a paladin' ... but why the heck would I do that, what does my opinion on that prove! It'd be like saying the 'alchemist is just a healer and not that good at it'.
N.B. I do love the Battlesmith, btw, would love to play one one day, but after I’ve hung up my plaguey-boy’s mask for a while. I was just doing the devil's advocate thing.
I'm saying 'bad' in terms of what it brings to the table, whether that be DPS, support or utility. Personally I enjoy playing support classes, but this doesn't measure up. Even limiting the comparison to the other subclasses it doesn't measure up in terms of DPS, support or utility. It has the basic artificer frame then gets an elixir, not a steel companion, not a cannon, not magic armor. Then when the other subclasses lean into their defining characteristic at 5th the alchemist gets +int to limited damage & heal. Why? it doesn't mechanically equal out with the other sub-classes and isn't thematic. Same thing again at both 9th and 15th levels.
Again, I like the concept of the alchemist. However, the system doesn't deliver. Instead it forces a 'mad' chemist heal-bot role that is in every way underwhelming.
The alchemist definitely doesn't deliver when it comes to thematics. When I hear alchemist, I think of a chemist that is capable of brewing all types of healing/supportive potions, but also potions that can hinder your enemy, and make explosives, toxins, etc. However, the subclass only accomplishes half of and arguably very poorly. Yes, you can make things like poisons, alchemist fire etc. with alchemist supplies and poisoner's kits, but you won't be any better at it than the other artificers. Also, the fact that you know essentially the same 6 elixirs at 20th level and 3rd level is really sad. It doesn't feel like you've improved your alchemical skills that much. The Armorer gets many sweet perks to their armor. The Battle Smith's companion is constantly gaining hp and new abilities. The Artillerist's cannons deal more damage, and your eventually able to use two at a time. All of those things are exciting to get and are spread out through multiple levels. All the alchemist gets that improves their main feature is temp hp. That's a whole lot less flavorful and exciting than what the others get, especially since, again, the elixirs don't improve at all other than the temp hp. The other alchemist features suffer from this same boringness as well. Half of both the 9th and 15th features simply give you free use spells. Useful, without a doubt (especially Heal on a half caster), but still boring. The 5th level feature is a relatively small boost to damage and dealing. There isn't much flavor to this, other than the specific damage types it affects (a part from the Alchemist spells, the Artificer barely has any spells that deal damage, and only has a few healing spells, so you won't be using this feature that often).
For me, there are two major downfalls to the Alchemist Artificer; one of which can be hand-waved by a friendly DM
1. All artificers are half-casters; but the Alchemist doesn't have features to bolster the non-caster half, or the caster-half.
Other half, and even one-third, casters get features that make them useful as something other than a caster. Generally in terms of combat. For instance, all three other Artificers gain fighting skills; battle armor, a cannon, or a steel defender. Alchemist don't get anything that would make them want to go toe-to-toe fighting. But the features that they do get don't do a lot to improve their limited spell abilities. They get few more 1st-level spell slots in the form of elixers; but they are partially random. Certain spells gain a small bump in damage. And they gain a little bit of extra healing. But no armor, no weapons, no helpers, no extra attacks, no meta-magic, and no extended spells.
Since they have nothing else to fall back on, Alchemists should get a better boost to their spell casting abilities.
2. Alchemists are forced to use the Alchemical Supplies for casting spells.
I know that the description says, "After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus." But that only goes so far. All of their class features say, "Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus..." or "..provided you use alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus." So while all the other Artificers can substitute in any of their infusions, Alchemists must stick with mundane supplies. This is worse because all Artificers can make an Enhanced Arcane Focus which would give them bonuses on spellcasting. But the one subclass that depends on casting spells can't use any other arcane focus, or else lose out on the features of their subclass. That's like saying a Barbarian can only fight with unarmed strike while raging.
This can at least be rectified quickly by the DM saying "alchemist's supplies OR one of your infusions."
I'm not sure how to fix the other problem; a third domain spell per rank? More infusions? Ability to "soup-up" magical potions in either power or duration? Arcane recovery?
I just feel it needs a little something to make it compete with everyone else.
I see people are still hating on a fun subclass. Imma gonna add more non-hatey stuff. :-P
One of the things that came up was alchemists "not delivering" because players envision more than just a few elixirs / potions in the name. That's a self-imposed limitation.
Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power. To cast a spell, an artificer might use alchemist’s supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher’s supplies to inscribe a sigil of power, or tinker’s tools to craft a temporary charm.
One of the first things the class mentions is applying the spells as elixirs. Reread "The Magic of Artifice". The inherent nature of artificer as a class is that the spells are not cast as typical spells and they all require that material component. If an alchemist casts a spell that would be grenades, salves, powders, philters etc. Casting false life or aid, for example, can be a prepared that requires the alchemist to trigger the effect in some way at the time of casting.
Spells Prepared
LVL
Alchemist
Armorer
Artillerist
Battlesmith
Bard
1
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
4
4
4
5
3
12
6
6
6
6
4
14
8
8
8
7
5
16
10
10
10
8
6
17
11
11
11
9
7
17
11
11
11
10
8
19
13
13
13
11
9
22
15
15
15
12
10
23
16
16
16
14
11
23
16
16
16
15
12
24
17
17
17
15
13
26
19
19
19
16
14
27
20
20
20
18
15
28
20
20
20
19
16
29
21
21
21
19
17
31
23
23
23
20
18
32
24
24
24
22
19
32
24
24
24
22
20
33
25
25
25
22
This is why a person plays the alchemist. Spells prepped included experimental elixirs, lesser restoration, and greater restoration for alchemists. Bards are there for comparison. Other artificer subclasses gain benefits in armor, cannon, or defender but the alchemist has significantly more versatility in how spell slots are used and how many higher level spell options are available.
Before anyone says, "but spell slots will run out fast"...
Spells per Day
LVL
Alchemist
Armorer
Artillerist
Battlesmith
Bard
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
6
4
4
3
3
3
7
5
7
6
6
6
9
6
8
6
6
6
10
7
9
7
7
7
11
8
9
7
7
7
12
9
11 (+5)
9
9
9
14
10
11 (+5)
9
9
9
15
11
22 (+5)
20
20
20
16
12
22 (+5)
20
20
20
16
13
23 (+5)
21
21
21
17
14
23 (+5)
21
21
21
17
15
25 (+6)
22
22
22
18
16
25 (+6)
22
22
22
18
17
27 (+6)
24
24
24
19
18
27 (+6)
24
24
24
20
19
28 (+6)
25
25
25
21
20
28 (+6)
25
25
25
22
These spell slots per day included the SSI and experimental elixirs. The number in brackets for the alchemist are lesser restoration, greater restoration, and heal free castings. The extra versatility from the elixirs can eat through slots faster earlier buy with the introduction of more bonus elixirs, free spells, and the SSI there becomes plenty of room for using low level slots on elixirs more.
The shared resource argument also falls apart when looking at the lore bard. Lore bards gain more uses for bardic inspiration and spell slots as shared resources as well. The extra proficiencies only give half proficiency over jack-of-all trades for a small bonus. Abilities that share the same resource cannot be bad specifically for that reason if we can cite examples where the same argument fails to apply. In the alchemist's case, every free spell or spell-like ability (SLA) known is the opportunity to prepare another higher level spell. Every free casting or elixir is the opportunity to spend a spell slot on something else useful.
Other subclasses gain abilities through subclass features. There's no questioning that these are useful. The issue is they lack variety or versatility. They also tend to use the bonus action and that's something that is typically available for the alchemist to use in whatever other ways. It's not that hard to build a character who can use the bonus action that other subclasses tend to get pigeon-holed into.
The issue with alchemists is over-stated. It's about additional healing and versatility. That doesn't have to be for everyone.
Elixirs are the subclass feature so if you want an accurate comparison it should be stacked up against other subclass features. What you are doing is just saying this feature counts as spells known and spell slots and then comparing the base class slots/spells instead of assessing the benefits of one subclass to another.
Elixirs need to be cast ahead of time or require an extra action in combat to use. If you make them ahead of time there is a chance that you wont make the right one for the job you need it for.
Yeah they can have some added healing but artificers already have cure wound. Healing is also extremely inefficient in D&D so saying that this subclasses main benefit is that they are a little better at healing is kind of damning it with fain praise.
Look at the example of comparing subclass features with the healing of the "extra spell slots" of an artificer vs the arcane jolt of a battlesmith.
The battlesmith at level 9 gets 5 charges of jolt that can act as a 2d6 heal, at a 30ft range. It doesn't take an action, bonus action or reaction, it can just be done when you or your defender hit. Compare that to the healing elixir which at level 9 also gets 5 extra charges a day needs to be made ahead of time, and then needs your full action to administer and does 2d4+5 and also needs to be in touch range.
If you don't see how this comparison is extremely 1 sided idk what to tell you, I guess we just see things very differently
Yes they are. They duplicate or approximate existing spells. In a couple cases higher level spells than the 1st level spell slot the alchemist uses.
Elixirs are the subclass feature so if you want an accurate comparison it should be stacked up against other subclass features. What you are doing is just saying this feature counts as spells known and spell slots and then comparing the base class slots/spells instead of assessing the benefits of one subclass to another.
I'm doing that because that's how alchemists play. Isolating specifics like you propose ignores that interaction. How those benefits interact with the other features matters in that comparison.
Elixirs need to be cast ahead of time or require an extra action in combat to use. If you make them ahead of time there is a chance that you wont make the right one for the job you need it for.
That's a silly argument. I don't cast elixirs ahead of time unless I expect to need them. Casting them ahead of time isn't a drawback so much as a trade off for handing that spell off to another character to use.
Yeah they can have some added healing but artificers already have cure wound. Healing is also extremely inefficient in D&D so saying that this subclasses main benefit is that they are a little better at healing is kind of damning it with fain praise.
Healing is inefficient but that doesn't prevent it from coming up. When it does come up alchemists are better at it. Being better at something that does come up often whether it's inefficient or not cannot be a drawback. Especially the free use stuff like lesser restoration, greater restoration or heal.
If the armorer, artillerist, or battlesmith uses more slots casting cure wounds when that does come up those are slots the alchemist continues to use to prevent damage more efficiently or on something else. IE those other subclasses casting one more cure wounds than an alchemist and one lesser restoration on 9th level artificers leaves the alchemist with an a 1st and 2nd level spell slot over those others specifically because of more efficient healing with the same spells.
Look at the example of comparing subclass features with the healing of the "extra spell slots" of an artificer vs the arcane jolt of a battlesmith.
It's not just those low level extra slots. It's the effective extra slots from more efficient healing and the room to prep more high level spells because of those extra options known. Alchemists don't need to prep cure wounds because they always have healing word and healing elixirs. Alchemists don't prep lesser or greater restoration at higher levels. Alchemists don't prep alter self or fly. It's not a common prep but alchemists don't prep longstrider. Boldness and resilience are decent for 1st level slots. Room to prep higher level spells is a big increase in versatility.
Arcane jolt isn't a spell like ability. It's bonus damage / healing that doesn't replicate spells and doesn't have a variety of uses. It's the alternative to free uses of lesser restoration and average 7 points of damage / healing isn't as impacting as the negative effects lesser restoration removes, or the 2nd level spell slot the alchemist still has if the battle smith uses a slot to cast that lesser restoration.
Blind characters attack with disadvantage and get attacked with advantage. Poisoned characters attack with disadvantage. Paralyzed characters don't attack at all, get attacked with advantage, and take autocrits. Removing those conditions is far more effective when it comes to combat. That's literally the case of mitigating status effects being more effective than some healing or damage bonus.
Compare that to the healing elixir which at level 9 also gets 5 extra charges a day needs to be made ahead of time, and then needs your full action to administer and does 2d4+5 and also needs to be in touch range.
You're comparing a 9th level ability to a single option within the elixirs. That's highly misleading. See what I commented above.
EDIT: I would also point out that alchemists with an homunculus can use the bonus action to instruct the homunculus who would administer the an elixir from range.
If you don't see how this comparison is extremely 1 sided idk what to tell you, I guess we just see things very differently
Your comparison seems to be ignoring the big picture.
Don't forget the EE can only be administered to another if the target is incapacitated which is one of the big issues with the subclass.janky hand and action economy.
Can you define "janky"?
In all the games I'm played, the person with the potion (generally the alchemist) can either drink a potion themselves, or give it to someone incapacitated. Both will use their Action. If the other person is awake, each person uses their free action to transfer the potion, then the recipient can use their Action to drink it.
Otherwise, you have the Alchemist basically trying to give someone a drink while they are on the move. Picture someone trying to pour a gatorade down a marathon runner's throat with them not stopping.
Don't forget the EE can only be administered to another if the target is incapacitated which is one of the big issues with the subclass.janky hand and action economy.
A conscious character can drink the elixir themself just like any other potion. Not much of an issue.
Don't forget the EE can only be administered to another if the target is incapacitated which is one of the big issues with the subclass.janky hand and action economy.
A conscious character can drink the elixir themself just like any other potion. Not much of an issue.
The main complaint I hear is that it's a feature which, in combat, requires someone else's action rather than yours -- often someone with more important things to be doing with their action in combat than the Alchemist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Haravikk
I don't disagree that alchemist isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but it still doesn't even come close to stacking up to other subclasses.
Elixers are not good. Yes the effects are fine, yes some of them replicate the kind of effects you get from concentration spells, but this doesn't make them good or even adequate. The mechanics of them are just too clunky and in application.
-You need to make them ahead of time and then also drink them ahead of time in order to not waste actions in combat.
-Making them ahead of time means you might guess wrong on what you need
-Taking them ahead of time is only feasible if you are the ones initiating combat or possibly waste their duration.
-They still take spell slots, you are a half caster and don't get many of those
It's just not a well thought out subclass, if you have any doubt just consider that Alchemist can't even use the arcane focus infusions:
"Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus, you gain a bonus to one roll of the spell. That roll must restore hit points or be a damage roll that deals acid, fire, necrotic, or poison damage, and the bonus equals your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1)."
"Enhanced Arcane Focus
Item: A rod, staff or wand (requires attunement)
While holding this item, a creature gains +1 bonus to spell attack rolls. In addition, the creature ignores half cover when making a spell attack.
The bonus increases to +2 when you reach 10th level in this class."
All I see again is opinions, when I am having an absolute ball with my Alchemist. I guess it just comes down to how people like to play the game, because I cannot validly see an argument for aLcHEmiSt iS de WuRSt sUbcLasS eVa.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
You just pointed out that the most effective alchemist build is a healbot. Are there other options? Also how often does lesser restoration even come up? And most of the effects allow a save at the end of the affected character's turn. I can see a couple of instances where using your action may be worth it, but the majority of the time the character is going to make the save in 1 or 2 rounds.
I think the worst subclass every still goes to way of the four elements monk as the subclass actively prevents the utilization of base class abilities. However, alchemist is definitely in the running for 2nd or 3rd place.
Yeah and I don't see a problem with any of the things you tried to point out about my statement. There's no other healers in my party, run by a hardened 'save or suck' DM who misses the brutal grim of 1st and 2nd. Our party is constantly in danger of death and we get ailments all the time. Your point was "likely to save in 1 or 2 rounds", well they're not even spending a single round with a condition with the alchemist around. Our DM is often muttering "stupid f**kin' artificer" with a mirthful grin (an before anyone says the old last resort of 'well your DM needs to do better', nah, he does great. One of the best DMs Ive ever had, his campaigns are freshingly challenging, of the Tomb of Horrors generation). Playing the straight utility, party protector/buffer without worrying about dealing damage (as that is not how the subclass is built) makes this subclass pretty dang fun and rewarding and not once did I feel like I wasn't keeping up with the fighter or the rogue or paladin in terms of party contribution.
I posit that this subclass (and many of the other ones people rag on) is just as good as the rest for their base class*, especially if you're into the RP themes and narrative flavours that it can evoke (if you have that kind of mind). If you're a player that relies on "dis subclass has big boom boom, see it says it der on the page" and doesn't look past the DPS or the spotlight effect, well then maybe the problem isn't the subclass or the DM...
*Granted, I will agree with you on the Way of Four Elements. Tried to play it out once to see if I can make it work and ended up not using any of the subclass options haha
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
100% this, all the time, every time. Just look at forums the moment any one says "-multi class dip into-" the spotlight players scream in unison "HEXBLADE!". Never any love for Tomelock, let alone any other class' dip option haha
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
You just hit the nail in the head, most sessions or combat are too direct for lack of creativity or laziness. I understand that adding a lot of status conditions is not cool, but hey, there are spells for those things so let them shine, remind the players that bad things happens in different ways. I bet you that if as a DM you pop the things that ppl barely use out of complexity or laziness your session would be more engaging since they will have to deal with it in new ways since its strangely fresh.
This in turn will make ur players look at the support classes in a new light and make them more fun and wanted.
I feel like, out of all of the Artificer Subclasses, the Alchemist could have had a unique infusion. Probably something similar to Replicate Magic Item, where different potions are available at different levels, and can be taken multiple times.
And that's fine if that's your play style, but when I played, I wanted to do more than cast faerie fire and healing word.
I re-flavored every spell and infusion and still felt mostly useless.
What is delivered via the sub-class is bad. A random elixir that isn't what is needed 82% of the time, basically a first level spell and doesn't scale. Then in order to use it again, you have to start spending those base class abilities, while two of the other three sub-classes just have their abilities and the last (artillerist) gets a use for free for an hour and when they have to spend get another hour of use not a first level spell.
And still, all I’m seeing is personal opinion of your own experience not working the way you’d like. It is not “bad”. If I and others on this thread are saying it does work, has worked in their experiences AND they’ve enjoyed playing it, then that kinda says more about your interpretation/control over the the subclass. I mean ultimately, isn’t the golden rule of DnD “are you having fun? (yes) then you’re doing it right”. I mean, your argument of the subclass being “bad” is like someone saying ‘manual transmission is bad because I like automatics ... and I only know how to drive automatic’, or for an example closer to the game we’re talking about, ‘pact magic is dumb because I only like to use a spell book’. I could be coming back at this whole ‘alchemist is bad because something something random elixir something something don’t take my spell slots!’ with arguments like ‘artillerist is bad because all it does is pew pew and not that well, so why would I want to play a blaster-with-a-pet class when I could just play a wizard or ranger' or ‘battle-smith is bad because all it does is bash n smite and not that well when I could just play a paladin' ... but why the heck would I do that, what does my opinion on that prove! It'd be like saying the 'alchemist is just a healer and not that good at it'.
N.B. I do love the Battlesmith, btw, would love to play one one day, but after I’ve hung up my plaguey-boy’s mask for a while. I was just doing the devil's advocate thing.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
A great idea, to be sure. I dont even think they need a unique infusion, just a subclass ability that says something like
"When you take the Replicate Magic Item infusion, you can replicate the effects of a potion available in the Dungeon Master's Guide (or another source at the DM's discretion). To do so, you must have a vial, bottle, or other container to target with the infusion. This infusion ends early after the potion is consumed. Your artificer level determines the rarity of potions that you can replicate this way (insert restrictions etc). "
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I'm saying 'bad' in terms of what it brings to the table, whether that be DPS, support or utility. Personally I enjoy playing support classes, but this doesn't measure up. Even limiting the comparison to the other subclasses it doesn't measure up in terms of DPS, support or utility. It has the basic artificer frame then gets an elixir, not a steel companion, not a cannon, not magic armor. Then when the other subclasses lean into their defining characteristic at 5th the alchemist gets +int to limited damage & heal. Why? it doesn't mechanically equal out with the other sub-classes and isn't thematic. Same thing again at both 9th and 15th levels.
Again, I like the concept of the alchemist. However, the system doesn't deliver. Instead it forces a 'mad' chemist heal-bot role that is in every way underwhelming.
The alchemist definitely doesn't deliver when it comes to thematics. When I hear alchemist, I think of a chemist that is capable of brewing all types of healing/supportive potions, but also potions that can hinder your enemy, and make explosives, toxins, etc. However, the subclass only accomplishes half of and arguably very poorly. Yes, you can make things like poisons, alchemist fire etc. with alchemist supplies and poisoner's kits, but you won't be any better at it than the other artificers. Also, the fact that you know essentially the same 6 elixirs at 20th level and 3rd level is really sad. It doesn't feel like you've improved your alchemical skills that much. The Armorer gets many sweet perks to their armor. The Battle Smith's companion is constantly gaining hp and new abilities. The Artillerist's cannons deal more damage, and your eventually able to use two at a time. All of those things are exciting to get and are spread out through multiple levels. All the alchemist gets that improves their main feature is temp hp. That's a whole lot less flavorful and exciting than what the others get, especially since, again, the elixirs don't improve at all other than the temp hp. The other alchemist features suffer from this same boringness as well. Half of both the 9th and 15th features simply give you free use spells. Useful, without a doubt (especially Heal on a half caster), but still boring. The 5th level feature is a relatively small boost to damage and dealing. There isn't much flavor to this, other than the specific damage types it affects (a part from the Alchemist spells, the Artificer barely has any spells that deal damage, and only has a few healing spells, so you won't be using this feature that often).
For me, there are two major downfalls to the Alchemist Artificer; one of which can be hand-waved by a friendly DM
1. All artificers are half-casters; but the Alchemist doesn't have features to bolster the non-caster half, or the caster-half.
Other half, and even one-third, casters get features that make them useful as something other than a caster. Generally in terms of combat. For instance, all three other Artificers gain fighting skills; battle armor, a cannon, or a steel defender. Alchemist don't get anything that would make them want to go toe-to-toe fighting. But the features that they do get don't do a lot to improve their limited spell abilities. They get few more 1st-level spell slots in the form of elixers; but they are partially random. Certain spells gain a small bump in damage. And they gain a little bit of extra healing. But no armor, no weapons, no helpers, no extra attacks, no meta-magic, and no extended spells.
Since they have nothing else to fall back on, Alchemists should get a better boost to their spell casting abilities.
2. Alchemists are forced to use the Alchemical Supplies for casting spells.
I know that the description says, "After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus." But that only goes so far. All of their class features say, "Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus..." or "..provided you use alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus." So while all the other Artificers can substitute in any of their infusions, Alchemists must stick with mundane supplies. This is worse because all Artificers can make an Enhanced Arcane Focus which would give them bonuses on spellcasting. But the one subclass that depends on casting spells can't use any other arcane focus, or else lose out on the features of their subclass. That's like saying a Barbarian can only fight with unarmed strike while raging.
This can at least be rectified quickly by the DM saying "alchemist's supplies OR one of your infusions."
I'm not sure how to fix the other problem; a third domain spell per rank? More infusions? Ability to "soup-up" magical potions in either power or duration? Arcane recovery?
I just feel it needs a little something to make it compete with everyone else.
I see people are still hating on a fun subclass. Imma gonna add more non-hatey stuff. :-P
One of the things that came up was alchemists "not delivering" because players envision more than just a few elixirs / potions in the name. That's a self-imposed limitation.
One of the first things the class mentions is applying the spells as elixirs. Reread "The Magic of Artifice". The inherent nature of artificer as a class is that the spells are not cast as typical spells and they all require that material component. If an alchemist casts a spell that would be grenades, salves, powders, philters etc. Casting false life or aid, for example, can be a prepared that requires the alchemist to trigger the effect in some way at the time of casting.
This is why a person plays the alchemist. Spells prepped included experimental elixirs, lesser restoration, and greater restoration for alchemists. Bards are there for comparison. Other artificer subclasses gain benefits in armor, cannon, or defender but the alchemist has significantly more versatility in how spell slots are used and how many higher level spell options are available.
Before anyone says, "but spell slots will run out fast"...
These spell slots per day included the SSI and experimental elixirs. The number in brackets for the alchemist are lesser restoration, greater restoration, and heal free castings. The extra versatility from the elixirs can eat through slots faster earlier buy with the introduction of more bonus elixirs, free spells, and the SSI there becomes plenty of room for using low level slots on elixirs more.
The shared resource argument also falls apart when looking at the lore bard. Lore bards gain more uses for bardic inspiration and spell slots as shared resources as well. The extra proficiencies only give half proficiency over jack-of-all trades for a small bonus. Abilities that share the same resource cannot be bad specifically for that reason if we can cite examples where the same argument fails to apply. In the alchemist's case, every free spell or spell-like ability (SLA) known is the opportunity to prepare another higher level spell. Every free casting or elixir is the opportunity to spend a spell slot on something else useful.
Other subclasses gain abilities through subclass features. There's no questioning that these are useful. The issue is they lack variety or versatility. They also tend to use the bonus action and that's something that is typically available for the alchemist to use in whatever other ways. It's not that hard to build a character who can use the bonus action that other subclasses tend to get pigeon-holed into.
The issue with alchemists is over-stated. It's about additional healing and versatility. That doesn't have to be for everyone.
But they aren't spell slots, or "spells known"
Elixirs are the subclass feature so if you want an accurate comparison it should be stacked up against other subclass features.
What you are doing is just saying this feature counts as spells known and spell slots and then comparing the base class slots/spells instead of assessing the benefits of one subclass to another.
Elixirs need to be cast ahead of time or require an extra action in combat to use. If you make them ahead of time there is a chance that you wont make the right one for the job you need it for.
Yeah they can have some added healing but artificers already have cure wound. Healing is also extremely inefficient in D&D so saying that this subclasses main benefit is that they are a little better at healing is kind of damning it with fain praise.
Look at the example of comparing subclass features with the healing of the "extra spell slots" of an artificer vs the arcane jolt of a battlesmith.
The battlesmith at level 9 gets 5 charges of jolt that can act as a 2d6 heal, at a 30ft range. It doesn't take an action, bonus action or reaction, it can just be done when you or your defender hit.
Compare that to the healing elixir which at level 9 also gets 5 extra charges a day needs to be made ahead of time, and then needs your full action to administer and does 2d4+5 and also needs to be in touch range.
If you don't see how this comparison is extremely 1 sided idk what to tell you, I guess we just see things very differently
Yes they are. They duplicate or approximate existing spells. In a couple cases higher level spells than the 1st level spell slot the alchemist uses.
I'm doing that because that's how alchemists play. Isolating specifics like you propose ignores that interaction. How those benefits interact with the other features matters in that comparison.
That's a silly argument. I don't cast elixirs ahead of time unless I expect to need them. Casting them ahead of time isn't a drawback so much as a trade off for handing that spell off to another character to use.
Healing is inefficient but that doesn't prevent it from coming up. When it does come up alchemists are better at it. Being better at something that does come up often whether it's inefficient or not cannot be a drawback. Especially the free use stuff like lesser restoration, greater restoration or heal.
If the armorer, artillerist, or battlesmith uses more slots casting cure wounds when that does come up those are slots the alchemist continues to use to prevent damage more efficiently or on something else. IE those other subclasses casting one more cure wounds than an alchemist and one lesser restoration on 9th level artificers leaves the alchemist with an a 1st and 2nd level spell slot over those others specifically because of more efficient healing with the same spells.
It's not just those low level extra slots. It's the effective extra slots from more efficient healing and the room to prep more high level spells because of those extra options known. Alchemists don't need to prep cure wounds because they always have healing word and healing elixirs. Alchemists don't prep lesser or greater restoration at higher levels. Alchemists don't prep alter self or fly. It's not a common prep but alchemists don't prep longstrider. Boldness and resilience are decent for 1st level slots. Room to prep higher level spells is a big increase in versatility.
Arcane jolt isn't a spell like ability. It's bonus damage / healing that doesn't replicate spells and doesn't have a variety of uses. It's the alternative to free uses of lesser restoration and average 7 points of damage / healing isn't as impacting as the negative effects lesser restoration removes, or the 2nd level spell slot the alchemist still has if the battle smith uses a slot to cast that lesser restoration.
Blind characters attack with disadvantage and get attacked with advantage. Poisoned characters attack with disadvantage. Paralyzed characters don't attack at all, get attacked with advantage, and take autocrits. Removing those conditions is far more effective when it comes to combat. That's literally the case of mitigating status effects being more effective than some healing or damage bonus.
You're comparing a 9th level ability to a single option within the elixirs. That's highly misleading. See what I commented above.
EDIT: I would also point out that alchemists with an homunculus can use the bonus action to instruct the homunculus who would administer the an elixir from range.
Your comparison seems to be ignoring the big picture.
Can you define "janky"?
In all the games I'm played, the person with the potion (generally the alchemist) can either drink a potion themselves, or give it to someone incapacitated. Both will use their Action. If the other person is awake, each person uses their free action to transfer the potion, then the recipient can use their Action to drink it.
Otherwise, you have the Alchemist basically trying to give someone a drink while they are on the move. Picture someone trying to pour a gatorade down a marathon runner's throat with them not stopping.
A conscious character can drink the elixir themself just like any other potion. Not much of an issue.
The main complaint I hear is that it's a feature which, in combat, requires someone else's action rather than yours -- often someone with more important things to be doing with their action in combat than the Alchemist.