And possibly multiple item interactions which severely limits what the alchemist or anyone is holding. The fact the alchemist is basically forced into holding tools for most of the subclass to function is flavorful but doesn't interact well with the rest of the system.
It can work out fine. Those tools include flasks. So you magic your elixir into the flask you are already holding, and administer it...
And (again) it's the only subclass that can use an All Purpose Tool without giving up a shield / any class or subclass feature.
Its definitely is murder on action economy, especially for such a relatively minor effect. The way it is now, Experimental Elixirs are best made/used out of combat. 9/10, unless it's maybe the healing or boldness elixir, the elixir's effects is not worth using in the middle of combat. You or the person you are giving the elixir to most likely could do something with their action that could end combat sooner. The other elixirs have a long enough duration that they can be used before combat if you really think you'll need the boost and know combat is coming up soon.
And (again) it's the only subclass that can use an All Purpose Tool without giving up a shield / any class or subclass feature.
I don't see why this is a notable boon. Artillerists will just get the same benefit from a staff or wand and Armorers and Battlesmiths are less likely to be targeting enemies with spells since they're built around attacking (Ed. and in a pinch there's always the option to item juggle with free dropping and object interaction). All can still benefit from the APT's cantrip without holding it, if that's important.
Not exactly true on either point. The EE are explicitly unique items which are not part of the listed alchemist tools or any tool set for that matter. If anything an empty flask is called out in the PHB which means it's even worse if you want to really follow the way it reads due to needing specific containers.
APT isn't a class/subclass feature a player can readily rely on receiving. That's like saying the battle Smith can leverage magical weapons the best. Kinda a red herring.
The tools (as described in Xanathar's) includes beakers. Clearly they can be used for drinking / administering potions.
And well, yes, people have made the point that battle smith can leverage magical weapons better. It's minor, but it's relevant.
Anyway, I'm not arguing for or against anything about Alchemist here. I don't have a stake in this thread (these threads are usually pointless). But I do think it's worth pointing out that "always 'has' to hold tools" isn't always a negative.
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.
The elixirs do not require someone else's action. Elixirs allow for the option of letting other characters use their actions to apply the effects. Those are not the same thing. Letting another character use an elixir is a benefit. Can other artificer subclasses let other characters use their armor, cannons, or defender? No. They are restricted to their own bonus actions to use those items. Elixir's last all day and can be carried with any other character out to any range away from the alchemist and still use that ability.
Or the alchemist can use the elixirs themselves. Or the alchemist or homunculus can use the elixir on incapacitated characters. That complaint has no merit because the elixirs work like every other activated item in the game so far as the character using them is concerned. It's not typical to create elixirs in combat. It's typical to create elixirs in response to upcoming expectations such as combat, social, or environmental challenges.
And possibly multiple item interactions which severely limits what the alchemist or anyone is holding. The fact the alchemist is basically forced into holding tools for most of the subclass to function is flavorful but doesn't interact well with the rest of the system.
You don't seem to understand how these rules work. Alchemist tools do not require two hands. They work exactly like every other focus. Holding any focus in one hand does not preclude using that hand for the somatic parts of a spell and if it did that would apply to other foci such as wands.
Its definitely is murder on action economy, especially for such a relatively minor effect. The way it is now, Experimental Elixirs are best made/used out of combat. 9/10, unless it's maybe the healing or boldness elixir, the elixir's effects is not worth using in the middle of combat. You or the person you are giving the elixir to most likely could do something with their action that could end combat sooner. The other elixirs have a long enough duration that they can be used before combat if you really think you'll need the boost and know combat is coming up soon.
Because players in your games are so bad at planning that they create elixirs during combat 9/10 times? Seems a bit anecdotal. Don't make up statistics. ;-)
Healing, flying, or transformation are typically created at times when action economy doesn't matter. Boldness, swiftness, or resilience are more useful in battle and that still doesn't mean wait for the battle to start before creating them. In either case, the random elixirs are created outside of combat every time. Whether other elixirs might be created in combat or not depends on how long the combat looks like it might last.
Deliberately doing something that impacts action economy when it's not worth it is a player issue, not a mechanics issue unless that mechanic if forced to work that way. IME the only time what you are describing comes up is with unexpected combat encounters. That scenario does not represent all scenarios. If I want my alchemist to fly across a chasm that's easy with elixirs. If I want my alchemist to breath water that's easy to do with elixirs. Action economy usually doesn't come into play.
And possibly multiple item interactions which severely limits what the alchemist or anyone is holding. The fact the alchemist is basically forced into holding tools for most of the subclass to function is flavorful but doesn't interact well with the rest of the system.
It can work out fine. Those tools include flasks. So you magic your elixir into the flask you are already holding, and administer it...
And (again) it's the only subclass that can use an All Purpose Tool without giving up a shield / any class or subclass feature.
Not exactly true on either point. The EE are explicitly unique items which are not part of the listed alchemist tools or any tool set for that matter. If anything an empty flask is called out in the PHB which means it's even worse if you want to really follow the way it reads due to needing specific containers.
APT isn't a class/subclass feature a player can readily rely on receiving. That's like saying the battle Smith can leverage magical weapons the best. Kinda a red herring.
Creating elixirs requires the alchemist to have alchemist tools on their person, not in their hand. ;-)
Creating an experimental elixir requires you to have alchemist supplies on your person...
...TCoE page 14
An alchemist doesn't need both hands to create elixirs either. The restrictions you seem to have created for yourself aren't real.
No I am not. I am wearing a shield in one hand and the other is free for the flask for the elixir. If some weird situation comes up where I need to create an elixir and cast a spell in the same round I might need to give up the shield.
Since creating elixirs in combat is the exceptioninstead of the standard that's unlikely.
What I typically need is a shield in one hand and the other hand free to use alchemist supplies as a focus. That's not challenging.
Your argument would require alchemists to be spending slots on elixirs in combat consistently instead of managing resources appropriately. That doesn't make sense.
Because players in your games are so bad at planning that they create elixirs during combat 9/10 times? Seems a bit anecdotal. Don't make up statistics. ;-)
Healing, flying, or transformation are typically created at times when action economy doesn't matter. Boldness, swiftness, or resilience are more useful in battle and that still doesn't mean wait for the battle to start before creating them. In either case, the random elixirs are created outside of combat every time. Whether other elixirs might be created in combat or not depends on how long the combat looks like it might last.
Deliberately doing something that impacts action economy when it's not worth it is a player issue, not a mechanics issue unless that mechanic if forced to work that way. IME the only time what you are describing comes up is with unexpected combat encounters. That scenario does not represent all scenarios. If I want my alchemist to fly across a chasm that's easy with elixirs. If I want my alchemist to breath water that's easy to do with elixirs. Action economy usually doesn't come into play.
It's less of a statistic, and more like an expression, and I do bring up planning and creating elixirs out of combat and using them before a fight. Using them before/out of combat is the best way to use them.
I didn't bring up the out of combat uses because I wasn't talking about that. I also didn't bring up the random elixir(s) because they aren't reliable for obvious reasons. You can't plan randomness (and as stated above and by you planning ahead is the best way to use the elixirs). You can easily get an elixir that is too niche to be used in most sessions (breathing underwater or needing to fly over chasms don't happen that often.
Not bringing up elixirs out of combat is odd because that's when most elixirs are created.
5 combat encounters in a day that last 3 to 5 rounds makes it very clear the number of elixirs created during combat is very limited regardless.
Alchemists do a lot more cantrip spamming than elixir making. Why would the focus of your point be in the exception instead of the norm?
As for the free elixirs, if they are there they will get used. The only one that might not is the transformation elixir.
@Stoutstein
On the rare occasion that an alchemist creates an elixir in combat, what rule are you making up that the elixir requires any action for the hand off? The alchemist supplies aren't in hand when creating elixirs. Those supplies only need to be on the character. They don't need to be stowed to hand off an elixir.
Page 190 of the PHB, it says handing an item to another character is "the sort of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action." Stowing and unstowing has restrictions but handing off or releasing items doesn't.
It's odd you would apply an action cost of some sort to the alchemist who made the item that someone else is taking from them instead of the character taking it. ;-)
Another character taking and consuming an elixir is no different that handing off any other activation item from any character to another. The fact that it's possible to hand off that action is a benefit, not a drawback.
As for situations where it's questionably not worth the action how is that relevant? Players don't have their characters make poor choices by default so arguing that something is bad that players won't do anyway is speculating whataboutisms. The benefit is in having more options, not fixating on one offs.
How many elixirs do you think alchemists make each day? How many in combat? Why in combat instead of in preparation of when those specific elixirs might be needed?
Your argument is still based in the premise that artificers are spending actions in combat on an option that exists because it exists instead of making decisions on how to use those actions effectively. It begs the question of whether that's happening in play or not. It's a faulty premise.
What you've described only happens when it makes sense to do that. So if it makes sense at that time it cannot be bad and if it doesn't makes sense it does not happen.
Alchemists are useful because they have more variety of choice. They aren't limited to those specific choices at those specific times just because that suits your narrative. ;-)
Its definitely is murder on action economy, especially for such a relatively minor effect. The way it is now, Experimental Elixirs are best made/used out of combat. 9/10, unless it's maybe the healing or boldness elixir, the elixir's effects is not worth using in the middle of combat. You or the person you are giving the elixir to most likely could do something with their action that could end combat sooner. The other elixirs have a long enough duration that they can be used before combat if you really think you'll need the boost and know combat is coming up soon.
Just a suggestion, then maybe they shouldn't drink the potion? If they are so required they can't spend an action buffing themselves, then they really didn't need that buff in the first place.
Its definitely is murder on action economy, especially for such a relatively minor effect. The way it is now, Experimental Elixirs are best made/used out of combat. 9/10, unless it's maybe the healing or boldness elixir, the elixir's effects is not worth using in the middle of combat. You or the person you are giving the elixir to most likely could do something with their action that could end combat sooner. The other elixirs have a long enough duration that they can be used before combat if you really think you'll need the boost and know combat is coming up soon.
Just a suggestion, then maybe they shouldn't drink the potion? If they are so required they can't spend an action buffing themselves, then they really didn't need that buff in the first place.
Fair, but then a central class feature of the Alchemist goes unused or underused.
I'm still failing to see the issue with action economy.
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can magically produce an experimental elixir in an empty flask you touch.
So completely out of combat, you can make elixirs. Up to three for free depending on level.
You can create additional experimental elixirs by expending a spell slot of 1st level or higher for each one. When you do so, you use your action to create the elixir in an empty flask you touch.
Or you can use an action (like in combat) to create a potion.
But here is the important parts:
You need to touch an empty flask to create the elixir
You only need the alchemists' supplies on your person.
Creating an experimental elixir requires you to have alchemist's supplieson your person...
So you don't need to swap things around. DnD is is suspension-of-disbelief-magic, not a juggling simulator.
So long as the supplies on on your person, the only thing that needs to be in your hand is the flask. So in one fell swoop, you can touch the flask to create the elixir and use the same hand to give it to someone else.
If your hands were full before, that's not a problem of being an Alchemist. If you were trying to hand someone a normal potion, the end of some rope, a weapon, or a hankie to blow their nose, you still needed that empty hand to pass something on.
As far as everything else, welcome to the world of spell casting...
Bards need a musical instrument to cast, and really most instruments need two hands to play
Wizards need a rod, wand, or staff in one hand
Druids need a totem, wand, or mistletoe in hand to cast
Arcane trickster rogues need a bag of material components as they don't even get a focus
Yeah, it's stupid as hell that my Alchemist needs to essentially "brew" every spell in the heat of the moment. Or that my Battle Smith would pull out thieves' tools to cast Shield. But that's how the RAW world goes.
You only need the alchemists' supplies on your person.
I think the point of contention here is that you do need the supplies in your hand (or another tool, or an infusion) to cast spells. And it needs to be the supplies in particular to use Alchemical Savant.
The elixirs do not require someone else's action. Elixirs allow for the option of letting other characters use their actions to apply the effects.
Elixirs require an action to use. Whether it be the caster or another character using an action for the EE to an unconscious or the conscious character using the EE.
Those are not the same thing. Letting another character use an elixir is a benefit. Can other artificer subclasses let other characters use their armor, cannons, or defender?
No. They are restricted to their own bonus actions to use those items. Elixir's last all day and can be carried with any other character out to any range away from the alchemist and still use that ability.
It takes a full action to create an EE and a full action to use.
Yes. A steel defender can defend another character. The cannon specializes in defending other characters either at low level with mass temp HP or higher with temp hp and half cover. The armorer receives two additional infusions (only usable on their armor) but that may free up the basic infusions to hand out to others.
Or the alchemist can use the elixirs themselves. Or the alchemist or homunculus can use the elixir on incapacitated characters. That complaint has no merit because the elixirs work like every other activated item in the game
EE are basically potions and do not 'work like every other activated item in the game. They require an action to create, pass to another (object interaction), and another full action to use. Administering to an unconscious character also requires a full action.
Because players in your games are so bad at planning that they create elixirs during combat 9/10 times? Seems a bit anecdotal. Don't make up statistics. ;-)
Considering that EE must be created when you finish a long rest, all of them are created ahead of time and with no planning. Now if you want to spend spell slots, you are giving up base class abilities to fuel a sub-class ability (that is underwhelming and doesn't scale).
And (again) it's the only subclass that can use an All Purpose Tool without giving up a shield / any class or subclass feature.
An armorer can use a shield and an all purpose tool considering 1 free item interaction.
Now one of your earlier posts.
Your spells per day chart is complexly misleading. Without rehashing the entire chart. Experimental elixirs aren’t spell slots and the uses of lesser restoration, heal, and greater restoration are not equivalent to standard spell slots. Spell slots are versatile. Those abilities are sub-class features. To get a better picture you have to compare like to like, not try and reclassify a sub-class ability as a spell slot.
I will say all the EE have the same basic power as a 1st level spell. At higher levels the best you could argue is a 2nd level slot as the basic ability remains at 1st level and only a few temp HP are thrown on top.
If we use your comparison method and assuming one short rest during the day. Actual spell slots (abilities) inclusive. I’ll also point out that the number doesn’t do the differences justice as you have to actually what each brings to the table.
Spells per Day
LVL
Alchemist
Armorer
Artillerist
Battlesmith
Bard
5
6 (2)
6 (6)
6 (4)
6 (4)
9 (10)
Every Artificer receives another tool proficiency and their own spell list at 3 level. Bard receives their sub-class ability and expertise. Overall basically even on those two.
Alchemist receive 1 elixir that is random (ability). At fifth they receive a boost to a limited number of spells (ability). I only has the capability of affecting 1/6 of the 3 level ability received.
Armorers can wear heavy armor (ability) at no penalty (ability), cannot be removed & don/doff as an action (counting as 1 ability). Multiple models of armor and can switch after every rest – players choice (2 great abilities), two attack options – range and melee (ability). At fifth, they get an extra attack (ability) that directly interacts with their 3 level ability and enhances both attack options.
Artillerist receive a cannon that can be used as either a pet or an item (ability). Has three attack modes (3 abilities). At fifth level they add to damage (ability).
Battlesmith receive battle ready (2 abilities) and steel defender (ability – although it should count as more due to versatility). Then at fifth they also receive an extra attack(ability) which again enhances what they received at 3rd.
Bard (too many sub-classes to go into) but bardic inspiration recharges on a short rest. Based on your chart that puts it at (CHA mod x SR) per day – once CHA 20 and assuming only 1 short rest (10 abilites)
Armorer 3 armor mod and 2 additional infusions, guardian (5) infiltrator (? possibly every attack lets say 3 rounds/combat with only 2 combats per day 12)
Artillerist increased damage and detonate (2), half cover and two cannons – double all cannon abilities (14)
Battlesmith steel defenders levels as char (ability), jolt (5), improved defender – this is in addition to the general leveling that occurs (3)
Bard their inspiration has continued to improve and is now a d12 not even going to bother counting sub-class abilities. They get 8 Level Spells.
Alchemists really need much better level-based scaling for their Experimental Elixirs. That is their Primary benefit at level 3 and for it to be comparable to other classes (not just Artificers) it has to improve as character's Artificer levels go up. I cannot understand why the devs released such a a boring, uninspired and one-note subclass when "Alchemist" is supposed to be evoke visions of versatility, resourcefulness and creativity.
This subclass is a dud. And sadly, it's also the only Artificer type I would play in the vast majority of D&D campaign settings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It can work out fine. Those tools include flasks. So you magic your elixir into the flask you are already holding, and administer it...
And (again) it's the only subclass that can use an All Purpose Tool without giving up a shield / any class or subclass feature.
Its definitely is murder on action economy, especially for such a relatively minor effect. The way it is now, Experimental Elixirs are best made/used out of combat. 9/10, unless it's maybe the healing or boldness elixir, the elixir's effects is not worth using in the middle of combat. You or the person you are giving the elixir to most likely could do something with their action that could end combat sooner. The other elixirs have a long enough duration that they can be used before combat if you really think you'll need the boost and know combat is coming up soon.
I don't see why this is a notable boon. Artillerists will just get the same benefit from a staff or wand and Armorers and Battlesmiths are less likely to be targeting enemies with spells since they're built around attacking (Ed. and in a pinch there's always the option to item juggle with free dropping and object interaction). All can still benefit from the APT's cantrip without holding it, if that's important.
The tools (as described in Xanathar's) includes beakers. Clearly they can be used for drinking / administering potions.
And well, yes, people have made the point that battle smith can leverage magical weapons better. It's minor, but it's relevant.
Anyway, I'm not arguing for or against anything about Alchemist here. I don't have a stake in this thread (these threads are usually pointless). But I do think it's worth pointing out that "always 'has' to hold tools" isn't always a negative.
The elixirs do not require someone else's action. Elixirs allow for the option of letting other characters use their actions to apply the effects. Those are not the same thing. Letting another character use an elixir is a benefit. Can other artificer subclasses let other characters use their armor, cannons, or defender? No. They are restricted to their own bonus actions to use those items. Elixir's last all day and can be carried with any other character out to any range away from the alchemist and still use that ability.
Or the alchemist can use the elixirs themselves. Or the alchemist or homunculus can use the elixir on incapacitated characters. That complaint has no merit because the elixirs work like every other activated item in the game so far as the character using them is concerned. It's not typical to create elixirs in combat. It's typical to create elixirs in response to upcoming expectations such as combat, social, or environmental challenges.
Because players in your games are so bad at planning that they create elixirs during combat 9/10 times? Seems a bit anecdotal. Don't make up statistics. ;-)Creating elixirs requires the alchemist to have alchemist tools on their person, not in their hand. ;-)
An alchemist doesn't need both hands to create elixirs either. The restrictions you seem to have created for yourself aren't real.
No I am not. I am wearing a shield in one hand and the other is free for the flask for the elixir. If some weird situation comes up where I need to create an elixir and cast a spell in the same round I might need to give up the shield.
Since creating elixirs in combat is the exceptioninstead of the standard that's unlikely.
What I typically need is a shield in one hand and the other hand free to use alchemist supplies as a focus. That's not challenging.
Your argument would require alchemists to be spending slots on elixirs in combat consistently instead of managing resources appropriately. That doesn't make sense.
It's less of a statistic, and more like an expression, and I do bring up planning and creating elixirs out of combat and using them before a fight. Using them before/out of combat is the best way to use them.
I didn't bring up the out of combat uses because I wasn't talking about that. I also didn't bring up the random elixir(s) because they aren't reliable for obvious reasons. You can't plan randomness (and as stated above and by you planning ahead is the best way to use the elixirs). You can easily get an elixir that is too niche to be used in most sessions (breathing underwater or needing to fly over chasms don't happen that often.
@LaceAlma
Not bringing up elixirs out of combat is odd because that's when most elixirs are created.
5 combat encounters in a day that last 3 to 5 rounds makes it very clear the number of elixirs created during combat is very limited regardless.
Alchemists do a lot more cantrip spamming than elixir making. Why would the focus of your point be in the exception instead of the norm?
As for the free elixirs, if they are there they will get used. The only one that might not is the transformation elixir.
@Stoutstein
On the rare occasion that an alchemist creates an elixir in combat, what rule are you making up that the elixir requires any action for the hand off? The alchemist supplies aren't in hand when creating elixirs. Those supplies only need to be on the character. They don't need to be stowed to hand off an elixir.
Page 190 of the PHB, it says handing an item to another character is "the sort of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action." Stowing and unstowing has restrictions but handing off or releasing items doesn't.
It's odd you would apply an action cost of some sort to the alchemist who made the item that someone else is taking from them instead of the character taking it. ;-)
Another character taking and consuming an elixir is no different that handing off any other activation item from any character to another. The fact that it's possible to hand off that action is a benefit, not a drawback.
As for situations where it's questionably not worth the action how is that relevant? Players don't have their characters make poor choices by default so arguing that something is bad that players won't do anyway is speculating whataboutisms. The benefit is in having more options, not fixating on one offs.
How many elixirs do you think alchemists make each day? How many in combat? Why in combat instead of in preparation of when those specific elixirs might be needed?
Your argument is still based in the premise that artificers are spending actions in combat on an option that exists because it exists instead of making decisions on how to use those actions effectively. It begs the question of whether that's happening in play or not. It's a faulty premise.
What you've described only happens when it makes sense to do that. So if it makes sense at that time it cannot be bad and if it doesn't makes sense it does not happen.
Alchemists are useful because they have more variety of choice. They aren't limited to those specific choices at those specific times just because that suits your narrative. ;-)
Just a suggestion, then maybe they shouldn't drink the potion? If they are so required they can't spend an action buffing themselves, then they really didn't need that buff in the first place.
Fair, but then a central class feature of the Alchemist goes unused or underused.
I'm still failing to see the issue with action economy.
So completely out of combat, you can make elixirs. Up to three for free depending on level.
Or you can use an action (like in combat) to create a potion.
But here is the important parts:
So you don't need to swap things around. DnD is is suspension-of-disbelief-magic, not a juggling simulator.
So long as the supplies on on your person, the only thing that needs to be in your hand is the flask. So in one fell swoop, you can touch the flask to create the elixir and use the same hand to give it to someone else.
If your hands were full before, that's not a problem of being an Alchemist. If you were trying to hand someone a normal potion, the end of some rope, a weapon, or a hankie to blow their nose, you still needed that empty hand to pass something on.
As far as everything else, welcome to the world of spell casting...
Yeah, it's stupid as hell that my Alchemist needs to essentially "brew" every spell in the heat of the moment. Or that my Battle Smith would pull out thieves' tools to cast Shield. But that's how the RAW world goes.
I think the point of contention here is that you do need the supplies in your hand (or another tool, or an infusion) to cast spells. And it needs to be the supplies in particular to use Alchemical Savant.
It takes a full action to create an EE and a full action to use.
Yes. A steel defender can defend another character. The cannon specializes in defending other characters either at low level with mass temp HP or higher with temp hp and half cover. The armorer receives two additional infusions (only usable on their armor) but that may free up the basic infusions to hand out to others.
EE are basically potions and do not 'work like every other activated item in the game. They require an action to create, pass to another (object interaction), and another full action to use. Administering to an unconscious character also requires a full action.
Considering that EE must be created when you finish a long rest, all of them are created ahead of time and with no planning. Now if you want to spend spell slots, you are giving up base class abilities to fuel a sub-class ability (that is underwhelming and doesn't scale).
An armorer can use a shield and an all purpose tool considering 1 free item interaction.
Now one of your earlier posts.Your spells per day chart is complexly misleading. Without rehashing the entire chart. Experimental elixirs aren’t spell slots and the uses of lesser restoration, heal, and greater restoration are not equivalent to standard spell slots. Spell slots are versatile. Those abilities are sub-class features. To get a better picture you have to compare like to like, not try and reclassify a sub-class ability as a spell slot.
I will say all the EE have the same basic power as a 1st level spell. At higher levels the best you could argue is a 2nd level slot as the basic ability remains at 1st level and only a few temp HP are thrown on top.
If we use your comparison method and assuming one short rest during the day. Actual spell slots (abilities) inclusive. I’ll also point out that the number doesn’t do the differences justice as you have to actually what each brings to the table.
Spells per Day
LVL
Alchemist
Armorer
Artillerist
Battlesmith
Bard
5
6 (2)
6 (6)
6 (4)
6 (4)
9 (10)
Every Artificer receives another tool proficiency and their own spell list at 3 level. Bard receives their sub-class ability and expertise. Overall basically even on those two.
Alchemist receive 1 elixir that is random (ability). At fifth they receive a boost to a limited number of spells (ability). I only has the capability of affecting 1/6 of the 3 level ability received.
Armorers can wear heavy armor (ability) at no penalty (ability), cannot be removed & don/doff as an action (counting as 1 ability). Multiple models of armor and can switch after every rest – players choice (2 great abilities), two attack options – range and melee (ability). At fifth, they get an extra attack (ability) that directly interacts with their 3 level ability and enhances both attack options.
Artillerist receive a cannon that can be used as either a pet or an item (ability). Has three attack modes (3 abilities). At fifth level they add to damage (ability).
Battlesmith receive battle ready (2 abilities) and steel defender (ability – although it should count as more due to versatility). Then at fifth they also receive an extra attack(ability) which again enhances what they received at 3rd.
Bard (too many sub-classes to go into) but bardic inspiration recharges on a short rest. Based on your chart that puts it at (CHA mod x SR) per day – once CHA 20 and assuming only 1 short rest (10 abilites)
LVL
Alchemist
Armorer
Artillerist
Battlesmith
Bard
15
12 (13)
12 (28)
12 (20)
12 (13)
18
Alchemist 3 elixirs + temp hp, savant, lesser restoration (5), resistance, greater restoration, heal
Armorer 3 armor mod and 2 additional infusions, guardian (5) infiltrator (? possibly every attack lets say 3 rounds/combat with only 2 combats per day 12)
Artillerist increased damage and detonate (2), half cover and two cannons – double all cannon abilities (14)
Battlesmith steel defenders levels as char (ability), jolt (5), improved defender – this is in addition to the general leveling that occurs (3)
Bard their inspiration has continued to improve and is now a d12 not even going to bother counting sub-class abilities. They get 8 Level Spells.
Alchemists really need much better level-based scaling for their Experimental Elixirs. That is their Primary benefit at level 3 and for it to be comparable to other classes (not just Artificers) it has to improve as character's Artificer levels go up. I cannot understand why the devs released such a a boring, uninspired and one-note subclass when "Alchemist" is supposed to be evoke visions of versatility, resourcefulness and creativity.
This subclass is a dud. And sadly, it's also the only Artificer type I would play in the vast majority of D&D campaign settings.