Am I the only one who was somewhat disappointed with how WotC handled the alchemist subclass? I mean, Don't get me wrong it's not "bad" persay. But they could've done so much more with it. Like for real, you give the alchemist an ability that grants people random abilities... and don't give them spells like "chaos bolt?" Really? Also with how much Artificers rely on their cantrips it's kinda disappointing they only get like two for the majority of the game.
Well, players seem to not pay attention to this on the Artificer because it's not common but they can change their cantrip every time they level up and that's pretty good versatility to a degree.
You know two cantrips of your choice from the artificer spell list. At higher levels, you learn additional artificer cantrips of your choice, as shown in the Cantrips Known column of the Artificer table.
When you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the artificer cantrips you know with another cantrip from the artificer spell list.
Am I the only one who was somewhat disappointed with how WotC handled the alchemist subclass? I mean, Don't get me wrong it's not "bad" persay. But they could've done so much more with it. Like for real, you give the alchemist an ability that grants people random abilities... and don't give them spells like "chaos bolt?" Really? Also with how much Artificers rely on their cantrips it's kinda disappointing they only get like two for the majority of the game.
You're definitely not alone. Alchemist is easily the most disliked Artificer subclass. Honestly, it's better than people seem to think, but I understand that it doesn't deliver on its promise as well as the other artificer subclasses do. As for cantrips... yeah, that's just a challenge across the board for the class. Especially if you intend to have any constructs, whether it's a tiny homonculus or the battlesmith's steel defender, since you're basically required to take the Mending cantrip to heal your pet, meaning you basically get one cantrip of your choosing until level 10. It's definitely worth playing a race that gets a cantrip to start or grab a feat that teaches a cantrip.
Am I the only one who was somewhat disappointed with how WotC handled the alchemist subclass? I mean, Don't get me wrong it's not "bad" persay. But they could've done so much more with it. Like for real, you give the alchemist an ability that grants people random abilities... and don't give them spells like "chaos bolt?" Really? Also with how much Artificers rely on their cantrips it's kinda disappointing they only get like two for the majority of the game.
There's nothing wrong with the Alchemist except that their Experimental Elixir sucks. It sucks less than some people think - because they miss that you can spend a spell slot to CHOOSE the elixir - but the effects are still quite minor, require an action to activate, and don't scale. And since that's their core Level 3 feature, it's easy to get down on the subclass. But the real bread and butter of the subclass is their expanded spell list (Healing Word and Flame Sphere!) and adding INT to spell damage and healing from level 5. Temp HP, resistances, and free restoration spells later on are all icing on the cake. Alchemists really lean in to the Artificer's support role.
We homebrewed the Experimental Elixir to be 1 chosen elixir for each level of the spell slot. Because it doesn't make any sense to spend a 3rd level spell slot and get the same benefit from it as spending a 1st level spell slot. My DM and I am looking more into it. Once I level up a bit more, we'll think about maybe increasing the potency or adding other effects that can be replicated with an Experimental Elixir.
Edit: I also use Custom Items to organise my elixirs more easily. Just increase/decrease the amount you have available every morning and you're good to go.
Check out my Browser Extension: BeyondMarkdown, which seamlessly converts markdown in character and encounter notes into beautifully formatted HTML, making note-taking more efficient and readable. GitHub, Chrome/Edge, Firefox
There's nothing wrong with the Alchemist except that their Experimental Elixir sucks. It sucks less than some people think - because they miss that you can spend a spell slot to CHOOSE the elixir - but the effects are still quite minor, require an action to activate, and don't scale.
I think it's harsh to say that the feature sucks; it also does actually scale, as you get more free elixiris as you level up, and they also grant temporary hit points at higher levels.
Overall it's an okay feature, as you're getting free potions every day, and when it comes to the randomness there are only really two that are very situational, namely Transformation (though it's still a free 2nd level spell with no concentration) and Swiftness. Everything else should be usable most of the time.
While yes, it being an action (like most potions) makes it harder to use in combat, the same is true of Bless and a bunch of other buff spells; your aim is to use them before starting a combat. However, the action cost is divided between the party; for example if you're boosting a Paladin with Boldness then it's the Paladin that spends the action as they head into battle, the Artificer is completely free to do as they please. Even if you do use one yourself, Artificers have a decent number of bonus actions they can take as well so it's not the whole turn.
Overall the Alchemist is very much a support oriented sub-class, so unlike the other options it's not well suited to building anything else, so you really need to be committed to building a support character, or multi-class into something else to get the mix you want. But I actually think it's a perfectly good sub-class, and find it's tricky to call it even the weakest sub-class for Atrificers, as too often people are only thinking about damage, but in reality it has solid general casting, some good bonus spells (only sub-class with Healing Word, the best healing spell in the game IMO), as well as free uses of various useful spells. It may be the least obviously impressive at 3rd level, but that depends a lot on how you play it and how well you fit in with the rest of the party (might be underwhelming if they already have a full cleric, but if you share healing duty with a Paladin then the party is well covered). And really if it lets you build the kind of character you want to play as then it's actually the single best sub-class in the game, no contest.
One thing to keep in mind as well is that a lot of people who complain the loudest about the final form of the Alchemist are ones who really liked the different style of Alchemist that we got in UA; it was a more of an up-front type of sub-class, whereas this version is very much geared for support only. I share the disappointment that we didn't get the UA version, but I disagree that it makes the final version bad, it's just different.
It's probably more fair to say that it's the least flexible in terms of character build, though it's also still an Artificer sub-class (and Artificers are quite flexible toolkits to begin with); but if you're happy to play the type of support character it's for then it makes a pretty damn good mixed healer/support/ranged character. I also recommend the Poisoner feat and dish out some poisons alongside those elixiris (but don't mix them up!).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Might be off topic, but my disappointment is that they have no feature that lets them craft the Alchemist's Fire object. Even just a reduced cost/time to craft it would have been a nice wink to the item thats been in the PHB since it was first published.
Edit: To fix my disappointment, I wrote up an optional feature for the Alchemist which would let them craft Alchemist's Fire using their Experimental Elixir feature, but only when they expend a spell slot to do so.
Blazing Elixir
5th-level Alchemist feature
At 5th level, you have learned to make dangerous concoctions to engulf your enemies in flames. When you expend a spell slot of 1st level or higher to create an experimental elixir, you can choose to fill the bottle with Alchemist’s Fire instead of one of the options listed in the table. When created this way, your Intelligence modifier is added to the damage dealt by the Alchemist’s Fire on each of the target's turns.
If you expend a spell slot of 2nd level or higher to create Alchemist’s Fire using your Experimental Elixir feature, the damage it deals on each of the target’s turns increases by 1d4 for each spell slot above 1st level.
Might be off topic, but my disappointment is that they have no feature that lets them craft the Alchemist's Fire object. Even just a reduced cost/time to craft it would have been a nice wink to the item thats been in the PHB since it was first published.
Allowing them to swap experimental elixir doses for the ability to make additional alchemical items during a long rest would seem reasonable though, i.e- instead of one random elixir you can spend an extra 50gp to make a second alchemist's fire instead, ideal for stocking up during downtime.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Might be off topic, but my disappointment is that they have no feature that lets them craft the Alchemist's Fire object. Even just a reduced cost/time to craft it would have been a nice wink to the item thats been in the PHB since it was first published.
Allowing them to swap experimental elixir doses for the ability to make additional alchemical items during a long rest would seem reasonable thoigh, i.e- instead of one random elixir you can spend an extra 50gp to make a second alchemist's fire instead, ideal for stocking up during downtime.
Considering Alchemists Fire is only 1d4 damage (per turn), I would say if they sacrificed making their random elixir it should cover the cost of making the Alchemist's Fire. At higher levels when the experimental elixirs get bonuses from subclass abilities, it just wouldn't be worth it to sacrifice one of those AND spend 50gp in exchange for a normal Alchemist's Fire
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Might be off topic, but my disappointment is that they have no feature that lets them craft the Alchemist's Fire object. Even just a reduced cost/time to craft it would have been a nice wink to the item thats been in the PHB since it was first published.
Allowing them to swap experimental elixir doses for the ability to make additional alchemical items during a long rest would seem reasonable thoigh, i.e- instead of one random elixir you can spend an extra 50gp to make a second alchemist's fire instead, ideal for stocking up during downtime.
Considering Alchemists Fire is only 1d4 damage (per turn), I would say if they sacrificed making their random elixir it should cover the cost of making the Alchemist's Fire. At higher levels when the experimental elixirs get bonuses from subclass abilities, it just wouldn't be worth it to sacrifice one of those AND spend 50gp in exchange for a normal Alchemist's Fire
Alchemist's Fire should cost 25 gp to make, whether you make one for 0 time as part of a long rest or you make one with 40 hours of work using the crafting rules, using the rules common to everyone proficient in the supplies. Either way, like all Artificers, Magic Item Savant won't apply to making mundane items (Artificers can already make e.g. magic weapons and armor faster than they can the normal kind).
Since none of the Artificer subclasses actually get better with their subclass tools - Artillerists aren't actually better at woodcarving, and Armorers and Battlesmiths aren't any better at smithing - I don't think it makes thematic sense to make Alchemists better at alchemist's supplies. If you wanted Alchemists to be better with Alchemy "weapons", you should grant them proficiency in Alchemist's Fire and Acid Vials, much like how Armorers and Battlesmiths gain some proficiencies. Optionally, to continue copying them, you could let them throw with Intelligence.
I don't think the alchemist is bad, but Experimental Elixir is not a very exciting ability. It doesn't evoke the same reaction from my experience that the turret or steel defender or even the thunder gauntlets do. Getting a random, minor buff just isn't very exciting and being able to turn your spell slots into more, while okay, doesn't feel great either considering how few slots you have. A lot of alchemists I've seen in play will brew up a bunch of potions that are pretty okay... and then spend most of the day spamming firebolt because that's all they have support for.
... I really think Artificers in general should have gotten three or maybe even four cantrips at level 1. They rely on cantrips so much and because of the way their class features are built out there are some really strong expectations that you take certain cantrips in order to function properly. It makes the class pretty stale at times and leads to, from my experience, really bad cantrip diversity among different players and forces the artificer to avoid a lot of the more fun and creative cantrips until high levels. It was a bad call on WotC's part to limit them as much as they did.
Considering Alchemists Fire is only 1d4 damage (per turn), I would say if they sacrificed making their random elixir it should cover the cost of making the Alchemist's Fire. At higher levels when the experimental elixirs get bonuses from subclass abilities, it just wouldn't be worth it to sacrifice one of those AND spend 50gp in exchange for a normal Alchemist's Fire
That's more of a problem with the item, and items in general; if you go by the items in the PHB then a flask of acid is no more potent whether it comes from a lemon or an ancient black dragon. While poisons are a bit more well covered in the DMG with some stronger options, they're still a bit underwhelming as well at higher levels.
This is true of crafting as a whole in D&D; you can get smith's tools but beyond repairs there isn't a whole lot of detail about what you can do with regards to actually forging new equipment, or making better equipment, that's generally left up to the DM. The game doesn't having a lot of crafting rules, it's just "ask your DM and then roll for it", which has advantages, but also disadvantages when you want something a bit more structured and balanced. For example, shouldn't a really good smith be able to make a better longsword? But what does that look like? We only really have magic items for progression.
As a higher level Alchemist you can, and should, ask your DM if you can attempt to make a stronger form of alchemist's fire etc., and discuss with them what that might mean (bigger radius, more damage), but probably the simplest is to ask to use your spell save DC for the difficulty on the item if it's one your produced yourself, since it's Intelligence based so makes sense.
I would say though, even at low levels the benefit of alchemist's fire isn't the damage (1d4 and DC10 is pretty underwhelming even at level 1), it's creating confusion, panic, or burning stuff to the ground. One of my groups has used it successfully a few times against overwhelming numbers by just going scorched earth on a structure so we can't be surrounded. Sure there are other options, and a wizard can do it with various spells, but only alchemist's fire can let the whole party strategically set multiple fires at once.
Also, waiving the cost would be too much; experimental elixirs are temporary, crafted concoctions are not. There needs to be a material cost, unless your intention to make an "experimental" alchemist's fire that only lasts till the next long rest? If so, the damage should remain as-is IMO, as none of the elixirs scale (the scaling is in quantity you can make for free), but I could definitely see a change in the DC.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
... I really think Artificers in general should have gotten three or maybe even four cantrips at level 1. They rely on cantrips so much and because of the way their class features are built out there are some really strong expectations that you take certain cantrips in order to function properly. It makes the class pretty stale at times and leads to, from my experience, really bad cantrip diversity among different players and forces the artificer to avoid a lot of the more fun and creative cantrips until high levels. It was a bad call on WotC's part to limit them as much as they did.
The other half-casters (Paladins and Rangers) don't get any cantrips at all; I think being a bit limited is fair given what else the class gets (infusions etc.).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
We homebrewed the Experimental Elixir to be 1 chosen elixir for each level of the spell slot. Because it doesn't make any sense to spend a 3rd level spell slot and get the same benefit from it as spending a 1st level spell slot. My DM and I am looking more into it. Once I level up a bit more, we'll think about maybe increasing the potency or adding other effects that can be replicated with an Experimental Elixir.
Edit: I also use Custom Items to organise my elixirs more easily. Just increase/decrease the amount you have available every morning and you're good to go.
To be honest, I think the best way to re-write the ability is to just let Alchemists bottle spells. Let Experimental Elixirs contain any spell that meets the following criteria:
The slot expended to buy the elixir is the slot used to cast the spell.
The spell must have a casting time of 1 action.
The spell must not consume any M components or have costly M components.
The spell must be able to target exactly 1 creature (if it can target more, that's ok; if it must target more, that's not ok) without targeting anything else.
The spell must not have a range of Self.
When someone drinks the potion, the spell resolves against them and only them, as if the spell were targeting them alone.
We homebrewed the Experimental Elixir to be 1 chosen elixir for each level of the spell slot. Because it doesn't make any sense to spend a 3rd level spell slot and get the same benefit from it as spending a 1st level spell slot. My DM and I am looking more into it. Once I level up a bit more, we'll think about maybe increasing the potency or adding other effects that can be replicated with an Experimental Elixir.
Edit: I also use Custom Items to organise my elixirs more easily. Just increase/decrease the amount you have available every morning and you're good to go.
To be honest, I think the best way to re-write the ability is to just let Alchemists bottle spells. Let Experimental Elixirs contain any spell that meets the following criteria:
The slot expended to buy the elixir is the slot used to cast the spell.
The spell must have a casting time of 1 action.
The spell must not consume any M components or have costly M components.
The spell must be able to target exactly 1 creature (if it can target more, that's ok; if it must target more, that's not ok) without targeting anything else.
The spell must not have a range of Self.
When someone drinks the potion, the spell resolves against them and only them, as if the spell were targeting them alone.
I would also limit it to Transmutation (and maybe Enchantment) spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Browser Extension: BeyondMarkdown, which seamlessly converts markdown in character and encounter notes into beautifully formatted HTML, making note-taking more efficient and readable. GitHub, Chrome/Edge, Firefox
I would also limit it to Transmutation (and maybe Enchantment) spells.
Why? Spell schools are incredibly inconsistent in 5E - what spells are you concerned about bottling that would be overpowered? My version lets you bottle Greater Restoration, for example, which seems highly appropriate and is Abjuration. It also lets you bottle Resilient Sphere, which is entertaining, but I don't think it's OP. What's the issue?
EDIT: Although I also just realized I forgot to include rules for handling Concentration. I would have it work like the Bless elixir, Boldness, does, which is copy Glyph of Warding - using the potion circumvents the need for Concentration, and the spell ceases to be Concentration.
Am I the only one who was somewhat disappointed with how WotC handled the alchemist subclass? I mean, Don't get me wrong it's not "bad" persay. But they could've done so much more with it. Like for real, you give the alchemist an ability that grants people random abilities... and don't give them spells like "chaos bolt?" Really? Also with how much Artificers rely on their cantrips it's kinda disappointing they only get like two for the majority of the game.
Well, players seem to not pay attention to this on the Artificer because it's not common but they can change their cantrip every time they level up and that's pretty good versatility to a degree.
Cantrips (0-Level Spells)
You know two cantrips of your choice from the artificer spell list. At higher levels, you learn additional artificer cantrips of your choice, as shown in the Cantrips Known column of the Artificer table.
When you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the artificer cantrips you know with another cantrip from the artificer spell list.
Woah, it does say that. Although, I have to admit I considered the same rules applied to all and didn't read that part very well.
You're definitely not alone. Alchemist is easily the most disliked Artificer subclass. Honestly, it's better than people seem to think, but I understand that it doesn't deliver on its promise as well as the other artificer subclasses do. As for cantrips... yeah, that's just a challenge across the board for the class. Especially if you intend to have any constructs, whether it's a tiny homonculus or the battlesmith's steel defender, since you're basically required to take the Mending cantrip to heal your pet, meaning you basically get one cantrip of your choosing until level 10. It's definitely worth playing a race that gets a cantrip to start or grab a feat that teaches a cantrip.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Mending is even more of a safety net because of it's long cast time so it's not usable in battle. Something that a lot of people forget.
There's nothing wrong with the Alchemist except that their Experimental Elixir sucks. It sucks less than some people think - because they miss that you can spend a spell slot to CHOOSE the elixir - but the effects are still quite minor, require an action to activate, and don't scale. And since that's their core Level 3 feature, it's easy to get down on the subclass. But the real bread and butter of the subclass is their expanded spell list (Healing Word and Flame Sphere!) and adding INT to spell damage and healing from level 5. Temp HP, resistances, and free restoration spells later on are all icing on the cake. Alchemists really lean in to the Artificer's support role.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
We homebrewed the Experimental Elixir to be 1 chosen elixir for each level of the spell slot. Because it doesn't make any sense to spend a 3rd level spell slot and get the same benefit from it as spending a 1st level spell slot.
My DM and I am looking more into it. Once I level up a bit more, we'll think about maybe increasing the potency or adding other effects that can be replicated with an Experimental Elixir.
Edit:
I also use Custom Items to organise my elixirs more easily. Just increase/decrease the amount you have available every morning and you're good to go.
Check out my Browser Extension: BeyondMarkdown, which seamlessly converts markdown in character and encounter notes into beautifully formatted HTML, making note-taking more efficient and readable. GitHub, Chrome/Edge, Firefox
I think it's harsh to say that the feature sucks; it also does actually scale, as you get more free elixiris as you level up, and they also grant temporary hit points at higher levels.
Overall it's an okay feature, as you're getting free potions every day, and when it comes to the randomness there are only really two that are very situational, namely Transformation (though it's still a free 2nd level spell with no concentration) and Swiftness. Everything else should be usable most of the time.
While yes, it being an action (like most potions) makes it harder to use in combat, the same is true of Bless and a bunch of other buff spells; your aim is to use them before starting a combat. However, the action cost is divided between the party; for example if you're boosting a Paladin with Boldness then it's the Paladin that spends the action as they head into battle, the Artificer is completely free to do as they please. Even if you do use one yourself, Artificers have a decent number of bonus actions they can take as well so it's not the whole turn.
Overall the Alchemist is very much a support oriented sub-class, so unlike the other options it's not well suited to building anything else, so you really need to be committed to building a support character, or multi-class into something else to get the mix you want. But I actually think it's a perfectly good sub-class, and find it's tricky to call it even the weakest sub-class for Atrificers, as too often people are only thinking about damage, but in reality it has solid general casting, some good bonus spells (only sub-class with Healing Word, the best healing spell in the game IMO), as well as free uses of various useful spells. It may be the least obviously impressive at 3rd level, but that depends a lot on how you play it and how well you fit in with the rest of the party (might be underwhelming if they already have a full cleric, but if you share healing duty with a Paladin then the party is well covered). And really if it lets you build the kind of character you want to play as then it's actually the single best sub-class in the game, no contest.
One thing to keep in mind as well is that a lot of people who complain the loudest about the final form of the Alchemist are ones who really liked the different style of Alchemist that we got in UA; it was a more of an up-front type of sub-class, whereas this version is very much geared for support only. I share the disappointment that we didn't get the UA version, but I disagree that it makes the final version bad, it's just different.
It's probably more fair to say that it's the least flexible in terms of character build, though it's also still an Artificer sub-class (and Artificers are quite flexible toolkits to begin with); but if you're happy to play the type of support character it's for then it makes a pretty damn good mixed healer/support/ranged character. I also recommend the Poisoner feat and dish out some poisons alongside those elixiris (but don't mix them up!).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Might be off topic, but my disappointment is that they have no feature that lets them craft the Alchemist's Fire object. Even just a reduced cost/time to craft it would have been a nice wink to the item thats been in the PHB since it was first published.
Edit: To fix my disappointment, I wrote up an optional feature for the Alchemist which would let them craft Alchemist's Fire using their Experimental Elixir feature, but only when they expend a spell slot to do so.
Blazing Elixir
5th-level Alchemist feature
At 5th level, you have learned to make dangerous concoctions to engulf your enemies in flames. When you expend a spell slot of 1st level or higher to create an experimental elixir, you can choose to fill the bottle with Alchemist’s Fire instead of one of the options listed in the table. When created this way, your Intelligence modifier is added to the damage dealt by the Alchemist’s Fire on each of the target's turns.
If you expend a spell slot of 2nd level or higher to create Alchemist’s Fire using your Experimental Elixir feature, the damage it deals on each of the target’s turns increases by 1d4 for each spell slot above 1st level.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Anyone with Alchemist's Supplies can make Alchemist's Fire (Flask) if you go by the Xanathar's Guide Tool Proficiencies section.
Allowing them to swap experimental elixir doses for the ability to make additional alchemical items during a long rest would seem reasonable though, i.e- instead of one random elixir you can spend an extra 50gp to make a second alchemist's fire instead, ideal for stocking up during downtime.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Considering Alchemists Fire is only 1d4 damage (per turn), I would say if they sacrificed making their random elixir it should cover the cost of making the Alchemist's Fire. At higher levels when the experimental elixirs get bonuses from subclass abilities, it just wouldn't be worth it to sacrifice one of those AND spend 50gp in exchange for a normal Alchemist's Fire
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Alchemist's Fire should cost 25 gp to make, whether you make one for 0 time as part of a long rest or you make one with 40 hours of work using the crafting rules, using the rules common to everyone proficient in the supplies. Either way, like all Artificers, Magic Item Savant won't apply to making mundane items (Artificers can already make e.g. magic weapons and armor faster than they can the normal kind).
Since none of the Artificer subclasses actually get better with their subclass tools - Artillerists aren't actually better at woodcarving, and Armorers and Battlesmiths aren't any better at smithing - I don't think it makes thematic sense to make Alchemists better at alchemist's supplies. If you wanted Alchemists to be better with Alchemy "weapons", you should grant them proficiency in Alchemist's Fire and Acid Vials, much like how Armorers and Battlesmiths gain some proficiencies. Optionally, to continue copying them, you could let them throw with Intelligence.
I don't think the alchemist is bad, but Experimental Elixir is not a very exciting ability. It doesn't evoke the same reaction from my experience that the turret or steel defender or even the thunder gauntlets do. Getting a random, minor buff just isn't very exciting and being able to turn your spell slots into more, while okay, doesn't feel great either considering how few slots you have. A lot of alchemists I've seen in play will brew up a bunch of potions that are pretty okay... and then spend most of the day spamming firebolt because that's all they have support for.
... I really think Artificers in general should have gotten three or maybe even four cantrips at level 1. They rely on cantrips so much and because of the way their class features are built out there are some really strong expectations that you take certain cantrips in order to function properly. It makes the class pretty stale at times and leads to, from my experience, really bad cantrip diversity among different players and forces the artificer to avoid a lot of the more fun and creative cantrips until high levels. It was a bad call on WotC's part to limit them as much as they did.
That's more of a problem with the item, and items in general; if you go by the items in the PHB then a flask of acid is no more potent whether it comes from a lemon or an ancient black dragon. While poisons are a bit more well covered in the DMG with some stronger options, they're still a bit underwhelming as well at higher levels.
This is true of crafting as a whole in D&D; you can get smith's tools but beyond repairs there isn't a whole lot of detail about what you can do with regards to actually forging new equipment, or making better equipment, that's generally left up to the DM. The game doesn't having a lot of crafting rules, it's just "ask your DM and then roll for it", which has advantages, but also disadvantages when you want something a bit more structured and balanced. For example, shouldn't a really good smith be able to make a better longsword? But what does that look like? We only really have magic items for progression.
As a higher level Alchemist you can, and should, ask your DM if you can attempt to make a stronger form of alchemist's fire etc., and discuss with them what that might mean (bigger radius, more damage), but probably the simplest is to ask to use your spell save DC for the difficulty on the item if it's one your produced yourself, since it's Intelligence based so makes sense.
I would say though, even at low levels the benefit of alchemist's fire isn't the damage (1d4 and DC10 is pretty underwhelming even at level 1), it's creating confusion, panic, or burning stuff to the ground. One of my groups has used it successfully a few times against overwhelming numbers by just going scorched earth on a structure so we can't be surrounded. Sure there are other options, and a wizard can do it with various spells, but only alchemist's fire can let the whole party strategically set multiple fires at once.
Also, waiving the cost would be too much; experimental elixirs are temporary, crafted concoctions are not. There needs to be a material cost, unless your intention to make an "experimental" alchemist's fire that only lasts till the next long rest? If so, the damage should remain as-is IMO, as none of the elixirs scale (the scaling is in quantity you can make for free), but I could definitely see a change in the DC.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The other half-casters (Paladins and Rangers) don't get any cantrips at all; I think being a bit limited is fair given what else the class gets (infusions etc.).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To be honest, I think the best way to re-write the ability is to just let Alchemists bottle spells. Let Experimental Elixirs contain any spell that meets the following criteria:
When someone drinks the potion, the spell resolves against them and only them, as if the spell were targeting them alone.
I would also limit it to Transmutation (and maybe Enchantment) spells.
Check out my Browser Extension: BeyondMarkdown, which seamlessly converts markdown in character and encounter notes into beautifully formatted HTML, making note-taking more efficient and readable. GitHub, Chrome/Edge, Firefox
Why? Spell schools are incredibly inconsistent in 5E - what spells are you concerned about bottling that would be overpowered? My version lets you bottle Greater Restoration, for example, which seems highly appropriate and is Abjuration. It also lets you bottle Resilient Sphere, which is entertaining, but I don't think it's OP. What's the issue?
EDIT: Although I also just realized I forgot to include rules for handling Concentration. I would have it work like the Bless elixir, Boldness, does, which is copy Glyph of Warding - using the potion circumvents the need for Concentration, and the spell ceases to be Concentration.