... 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.).
Artificers don't really have the same toolkit as Paladins or Rangers though, so comparing the two directly doesn't really make sense. Artificers (particularly Alchemists and Artillerists) rely on their cantrips in ways that Paladins and Rangers never would to begin with (and more than full casters too, for that matter)... And tbh, whether or not paladins get cantrips seems pretty immaterial to the original complaint anyways.
It's definitely not the end of the world balance wise, but it strikes me as problematic when the vast majority of artificers I encounter takes the same set of cantrips because the expectations of their class push them in that direction so hard and the sky wouldn't collapse if an artificer could have mage hand too. It just feels like another example of WOTC being unnecssarily conservative with the class' design.
... 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.).
Artificers don't really have the same toolkit as Paladins or Rangers though, so comparing the two directly doesn't really make sense. Artificers (particularly Alchemists and Artillerists) rely on their cantrips in ways that Paladins and Rangers never would to begin with (and more than full casters too, for that matter). That said, yeah, maybe paladins and rangers should have gotten a cantrip or two too.
It's definitely not the end of the world balance wise, but it strikes me as problematic when the vast majority of artificers I encounter takes the same set of cantrips because the expectations of their class push them in that direction so hard and the sky wouldn't collapse if an artificer could have mage hand too. It just feels like another example of WOTC being unnecssarily conservative with the class' design.
This may be a hasty comparison on my part, but looking at the number of cantrips known a full caster like the Wizard will learn 5 cantrips at maximum from their class and a 1/3 caster like the Eldritch Knight will learn three cantrips at maximum from their subclass. The Artificer as a half caster seems to fit right inbetween the full and 1/3 caster by learning 4 cantrips at maximum from their class.
I would argue; however, that Artificers should gain access to their 3rd cantrip sooner than 10th level, as that is the same point the EK learns their 3rd cantrip.
... 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.).
Artificers don't really have the same toolkit as Paladins or Rangers though, so comparing the two directly doesn't really make sense. Artificers (particularly Alchemists and Artillerists) rely on their cantrips in ways that Paladins and Rangers never would to begin with (and more than full casters too, for that matter). That said, yeah, maybe paladins and rangers should have gotten a cantrip or two too.
It's definitely not the end of the world balance wise, but it strikes me as problematic when the vast majority of artificers I encounter takes the same set of cantrips because the expectations of their class push them in that direction so hard and the sky wouldn't collapse if an artificer could have mage hand too. It just feels like another example of WOTC being unnecssarily conservative with the class' design.
This may be a hasty comparison on my part, but looking at the number of cantrips known a full caster like the Wizard will learn 5 cantrips at maximum from their class and a 1/3 caster like the Eldritch Knight will learn three cantrips at maximum from their subclass. The Artificer as a half caster seems to fit right inbetween the full and 1/3 caster by learning 4 cantrips at maximum from their class.
I would argue; however, that Artificers should gain access to their 3rd cantrip sooner than 10th level, as that is the same point the ED learns their 3rd cantrip.
Alchemists should have either gotten their extra Cantrips a bit sooner... Or if they really wanted to tie cantrips to a subclass to some extent they should have had you gain one when you gain the subclass. A set one for something like Battle Smith or Artillerist maybe or a your choice one for something like Alchemist and Armorer.
Though I personally don't feel Mending is really required for the Battle Smith. It's Thematically appropriate to the Artificer and it does have some out of combat usage. But with it's inability to be used in combat and nothing actually changing that for the battle Smith that I can recall. A battle smith might be better served actually taking something else for one of their cantrips.
No one realizes that artificers arent suppose to be casters nor spell blasters.
The artificers are exceptional crafters of items and magic items of there expertise.
the alchemist is a POISONER, BOMBER AND TRANSMUTER.
no homebrew needed
there are items most cant craft but artificer can even if the wizard cant.
What class feature for the Artificer makes them more capable at crafting mundane items than anyone else? The only thing I can think of is their huge amount of tool proficiencies paired with the (optional) uses for them in Xanathar's Guide to Everything but even then, a wizard would be capable of doing the same thing by picking up the correct tool proficiency from their background or a feat.
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!
No one realizes that artificers arent suppose to be casters nor spell blasters.
The artificers are exceptional crafters of items and magic items of there expertise.
the alchemist is a POISONER, BOMBER AND TRANSMUTER.
no homebrew needed
there are items most cant craft but artificer can even if the wizard cant.
What class feature for the Artificer makes them more capable at crafting mundane items than anyone else? The only thing I can think of is their huge amount of tool proficiencies paired with the (optional) uses for them in Xanathar's Guide to Everything but even then, a wizard would be capable of doing the same thing by picking up the correct tool proficiency from their background or a feat.
I thought for a moment that the Magic Item Adept included a detail that all crafting takes a quarter of the time for an Artificer, but looking closer I see that it only applies specifically to magic items... a vial of acid is the same time sink no matter what. I thought for a second that Tool Expertise would be a factor as well, but the XGtE crafting system, as I recall, doesn't actually ask for skill checks... it's just a matter of time and money. Other than that the only skill they have really related to crafting is the fact that an Artificer can magically create any set of artisan's tools as long as they have some tools already, so at the very least they can save on the weight of carrying things, but that doesn't really make crafting mundane items any faster or easier. If anything it just adds time to it, since it takes an hour to create the new tools.
It not more capable all classes could be alchemist but, with the alchemist it compliments and adds to your spell casting and combat, most other classes dont get improved damage nor can it support your spell casting.
to most classes youll need improvised weapons to make your flasks and bombs apply your PB also none get alchemic supplies as a spell focus. Most classes cant even have a mundane item a spell focus with proficiency. And you have armor of tools which means you always have your Alchemist supplies on you in every combat.
Alchemical Savant
At 5th level, you've developed masterful command of magical chemicals, enhancing the healing and damage you create through them. 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).
you can spell cast and roll + INT MOD to healing or acid, fire, necrotic, or poison damage, and. You have CATAPULT 5lbs you can fling okay alchemist fire acid or oil are 1lb and you have caltrops too.
CATAPULT IS 3d8 bludgeoning + 1d4 alchemist fire every 1lbs (5d4) + INT MOD[increases to 12 lbs casted at lv2]
a dip in cleric gains you better healing at better than a elixir of healing or potion of healing 2d4+2
with a bit of creativity your the willy wonka of alchemical items and weaponry.
a little home rule add a little creepy and your Dr frankenstein mutating the human body as the polyjuice potions in harry potter.
and your knowledge of chemicals you know how to erase evidence of a crime or accidental murder hoboing.
and bloodhunter mutagens are always a homebrew possibility too.
A few iissues here.
1) The Catapult spell only lets you target one object, so you can only use it to launch 1 vial of Alchemist's Fire or Acid. I am not sure if using Alchemist's Fire or Acid as part of Catapult qualifies for Alchemical Savant because it only grants a bonus to "one roll of the spell." The catapult spell itself only deals bludgeoning damage. The fire or acid damage comes from the object used, not the spell. I could see a DM being generous and allowing it to work this way, but I dont think it is RAW
2) The alchemist artificer does not have a way to add their proficiency bonus to attacks made with Alchemist's Fire or Acid. They would also need a feat to do like all other classes
3) You say "most classes can't have a mundane object as a spellcasting focus with proficiency" and I dont really see what the argument is here. Any class that relies on spellcasting foci have their own unique objects (instruments, wands, etc). I also dont see what you mean by "with proficiency." Do you just mean they are also proficient in using their tools whereas a wizard isnt "proficient" in using a wand?
4) The improved damage only applies to spells you cast, it doesnt apply to using the types of mundane objects we were discussing.
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!
Alchemist if my favorite artificer subclass. The only issue is elixirs don't last as long as things like cannons or defenders; however, those elixirs do add versatility worth the spell slots to select and create one.
No one realizes that artificers arent suppose to be casters nor spell blasters.
The artificers are exceptional crafters of items and magic items of there expertise.
the alchemist is a POISONER, BOMBER AND TRANSMUTER.
no homebrew needed
there are items most cant craft but artificer can even if the wizard cant.
What class feature for the Artificer makes them more capable at crafting mundane items than anyone else? The only thing I can think of is their huge amount of tool proficiencies paired with the (optional) uses for them in Xanathar's Guide to Everything but even then, a wizard would be capable of doing the same thing by picking up the correct tool proficiency from their background or a feat.
Tool expertise.
Ability checks are the determination of the DM for the actions of the characters (or NPC's). It doesn't mean much if the DM isn't asking for the check, but if the artificers tries to, for example, craft acid that does more damage than the standard PHB equipment there's nothing that stops such an attempt and would be appropriate for the DM to set that check. It doesn't matter if the PC is trying to rush the job or improved the quality of the item -- that's when a check is appropriate and the applicable bonus comes into play.
This also applies to any other standard check with tools the DM might request. If my artificer is designing and building a wood structure the bonus to the check from tool expertise applies to the DC's listed in XGtE.
Alchemist if my favorite artificer subclass. The only issue is elixirs don't last as long as things like cannons or defenders; however, those elixirs do add versatility worth the spell slots to select and create one.
No one realizes that artificers arent suppose to be casters nor spell blasters.
The artificers are exceptional crafters of items and magic items of there expertise.
the alchemist is a POISONER, BOMBER AND TRANSMUTER.
no homebrew needed
there are items most cant craft but artificer can even if the wizard cant.
What class feature for the Artificer makes them more capable at crafting mundane items than anyone else? The only thing I can think of is their huge amount of tool proficiencies paired with the (optional) uses for them in Xanathar's Guide to Everything but even then, a wizard would be capable of doing the same thing by picking up the correct tool proficiency from their background or a feat.
Tool expertise.
Ability checks are the determination of the DM for the actions of the characters (or NPC's). It doesn't mean much if the DM isn't asking for the check, but if the artificers tries to, for example, craft acid that does more damage than the standard PHB equipment there's nothing that stops such an attempt and would be appropriate for the DM to set that check. It doesn't matter if the PC is trying to rush the job or improved the quality of the item -- that's when a check is appropriate and the applicable bonus comes into play.
This also applies to any other standard check with tools the DM might request. If my artificer is designing and building a wood structure the bonus to the check from tool expertise applies to the DC's listed in XGtE.
Sure, they get tool expertise which makes them more likely to succeed. I agree with that for sure.
My only issue is that it only makes them more likely to succeed on a check. It doesn't guarantee a reduction in cost or an improvement to the item. IIRC, successfully crafting an item only gets you that item without any chance of making an "enhanced" version. That comes down to DM discretion. So, I do not think that their tool expertise will allow them to "craft acid that does more damage than the standard PHB equipment" as you said per RAW for crafting.
It does, though, make them better at crafting than other classes. So I was wrong in my original statement.
Alchemist if my favorite artificer subclass. The only issue is elixirs don't last as long as things like cannons or defenders; however, those elixirs do add versatility worth the spell slots to select and create one.
No one realizes that artificers arent suppose to be casters nor spell blasters.
The artificers are exceptional crafters of items and magic items of there expertise.
the alchemist is a POISONER, BOMBER AND TRANSMUTER.
no homebrew needed
there are items most cant craft but artificer can even if the wizard cant.
What class feature for the Artificer makes them more capable at crafting mundane items than anyone else? The only thing I can think of is their huge amount of tool proficiencies paired with the (optional) uses for them in Xanathar's Guide to Everything but even then, a wizard would be capable of doing the same thing by picking up the correct tool proficiency from their background or a feat.
Tool expertise.
Ability checks are the determination of the DM for the actions of the characters (or NPC's). It doesn't mean much if the DM isn't asking for the check, but if the artificers tries to, for example, craft acid that does more damage than the standard PHB equipment there's nothing that stops such an attempt and would be appropriate for the DM to set that check. It doesn't matter if the PC is trying to rush the job or improved the quality of the item -- that's when a check is appropriate and the applicable bonus comes into play.
This also applies to any other standard check with tools the DM might request. If my artificer is designing and building a wood structure the bonus to the check from tool expertise applies to the DC's listed in XGtE.
Sure, they get tool expertise which makes them more likely to succeed. I agree with that for sure.
My only issue is that it only makes them more likely to succeed on a check. It doesn't guarantee a reduction in cost or an improvement to the item. IIRC, successfully crafting an item only gets you that item without any chance of making an "enhanced" version. That comes down to DM discretion. So, I do not think that their tool expertise will allow them to "craft acid that does more damage than the standard PHB equipment" as you said per RAW for crafting.
It does, though, make them better at crafting than other classes. So I was wrong in my original statement.
The 5e system is based on DM determining the results of any action that the player attempts. The player declares an action and then the DM decides automatic success or failure (no roll needed) or requests a check. That approach removes the need for defined tables by empowering both DM's and players in what they might try to do.
Crafting exceptional mundane items versus climbing a wall or looking for secret doors doesn't change that basic premise. The DM might call "jumping the moon" on it or decide it's reasonable to just allow, or decide that crafting exceptionally potent acid is nearly impossible so throws a DC 30 at it but it's just another action like any other.
The only thing stopping a player from doing that is a player who doesn't bother trying. Just because something doesn't appear on the standard equipment list doesn't mean it's not in the game. It means it's not standard equipment and falls under that determination of the results. There are countless options not listed in the game that fall under that mechanic because it's a cornerstone of the edition.
EDIT: To illustrate what I would do as a DM, I would consider anything not standard to be a DC above 20 otherwise it should be standard equipment. In the acid example, I would likely increase the die by 1 step for a 25 DC and 2 steps for a 30 DC if a player tried to do something like that. There's nothing unreasonable in attempting to "build a better mousetrap" by a PC but the fact it's not standard already means it would be exceptionally difficult.
The experimental elixir really is as bad as everyone says. Especially considering that you don't know what it is until it is used. Pretty much negating the whole "they're mostly useful".
Technically you could create an elixir then spend the next 11 minutes ritually casting Identify per elixir.
As for the elixir's themselves, one is completely useless pre-combat (no damage), 3 are situational and 1 is extremely corner case. If you're in a situation where one would be useful, you're either going to take the elixir and do a random roll (failing 5/6 of the time) and then spend the spell slot if available, or just go ahead and spend the spell slot.
As the cornerstone of the class, it is really bad. How many other sub-classes get an unreliable ability?
The closest I can think of is the college of spirits, but they know the effect, positive or negate, and can target an appropriate creature and get bardic inspiration back on a short rest at 5th level. And that is just one thing a college of spirits bard gets at 3rd level. What do the alchemist get? An unreliable and mostly useless ability. Sure they get an expanded spell list but every artificer gets one.
The experimental elixir really is as bad as everyone says. Especially considering that you don't know what it is until it is used. Pretty much negating the whole "they're mostly useful".
Technically you could create an elixir then spend the next 11 minutes ritually casting Identify per elixir.
I dont think theres anything in the language of Experimental Elixir that implies you dont know what effect the elixir will have when you produce the random elixir.
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!
Oh, no, you know what the Elixir is when it's created. I think the wording of it is a bit confusing: " Roll on the Experimental Elixir table for the elixir's effect, which is triggered when someone drinks the elixir," I can understand why you might read that as the roll itself is triggered when someone drinks the Elixir, but what it's meant to imply is that, after a long Rest, the Alchemist can touch an empty flask and fill it with an Experimental Elixir... at that moment they roll on the table and know what Elixir is in the flask and it remains potent until they complete their next Long Rest. The "Trigger" just means that the known effect of the Elixir is activated by the act of drinking the Elixir. Kind of an unnecessary explanation... I don't think other Potions are described that way, but I think it's partly worded that way to avoid shenanigans by trying to utilize the Elixirs in some manner other than drinking them (like someone attempting to pour the flying elixir over an object to make it weightless).
I can't argue if you just don't find any of the Elixirs particularly useful, but they're a lot more reliable than you think, since you can safely know what each Elixir is long before consuming it, so you're not just gambling when you drink a potion and hoping that you happen to get the flight you need to complete whatever task you're in the middle of. Although it's still quite possible to get your free Elixir in the morning and end up with something that's completely useless for that particular adventuring day.
Per RAW: "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can magically produce an experimental elixir in an empty flask you touch. Roll on the Experimental Elixir table for the elixir’s effect, which is triggered when someone drinks the elixir. "
The effect isn't triggered until someone drinks it. You don't know what it is until the magic is triggered. The whole identify is also varies by DM.
I don't know why you want the ability to be worse than it actually is, but no. Look at the order of operation. Long Rest, Touch Flask, Roll for Elixir. It does not say that you roll after drinking the elixir... the Roll overtly occurs before the trigger of drinking it. Keep in mind that the the subject of the Verb "Triggered" is not the Roll, but the Effect, and therefore the Effect is already known, because it's only determined after the Roll is complete.
Per RAW: "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can magically produce an experimental elixir in an empty flask you touch. Roll on the Experimental Elixir table for the elixir’s effect, which is triggered when someone drinks the elixir. "
The effect isn't triggered until someone drinks it. You don't know what it is until the magic is triggered. The whole identify is also varies by DM.
Just because the effect isnt triggered until someone drinks it doesnt mean you are unaware of what it does.
The effect of a potion of healing doesnt trigger until someone drinks it either, but that doesnt mean that it only becomes a potion of healing WHEN someone drinks it. Your approach assumes this is some sort of Shrodinger's Elixir
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!
Semantics aside, and note I mentioned casting Identify.
It is still a random effect for your primary subclass ability. All else being equal (tool and spell list) the only alchemist affect where every other artificer gets something else - the Artillerist only getting a pet but it has 3 options and gets better.
Semantics aside, and note I mentioned casting Identify.
It is still a random effect for your primary subclass ability. All else being equal (tool and spell list) the only alchemist affect where every other artificer gets something else - the Artillerist only getting a pet but it has 3 options and gets better.
The Elixirs get better as well... as you level up you're able to produce more free Elixirs each morning, and eventually all Elixirs have an additional Temp HP boost.
That said, I do agree that it's not as consistently useful a feature as what other Artificers get access to. Even with the eventual boost to the Elixirs, they basically amount to having a secondary pool of level 1 spells that are exclusive to the class and need to be prepped ahead of time. Even after unlocking the additional Temp HP boost to the elixirs, I still feel like an Artillerist who creates a Protector Eldritch Cannon will more effectively keep their allies alive.
Honestly, the Alchemist's best feature is probably Alchemical Savant, especially since they get access to Healing Word as a spell. It makes the Alchemist great as a reliable healer, making them almost as good as Life Domain clerics in pure healing potential, although with the versatility of the Artificer class.
I don't like Alchemical Savant because it almost forces the alchemist into the secondary healer. All those spell slots going to healing instead of participating in other way.
My primary issue is the alchemist is forced into that role, with no real other options, and doesn't do it well. And it is even worse when compared to a primary caster like: clerics, bards, or druids. Even paladins, warlock and sorcerer subclasses are better secondary support.
I don't like Alchemical Savant because it almost forces the alchemist into the secondary healer. All those spell slots going to healing instead of participating in other way.
My primary issue is the alchemist is forced into that role, with no real other options, and doesn't do it well. And it is even worse when compared to a primary caster like: clerics, bards, or druids. Even paladins, warlock and sorcerer subclasses are better secondary support.
I think that's a pretty interesting point... Alchemical Savant also gives boost to damage from an Artificer, but an Alchemist is better served using their Cantrips to accomplish that instead of their leveled spells, since the boost in damage isn't as impactful as boosts on healing are, since the game is balanced in a way that healing is usually done in much smaller numbers than damaging. I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head with Alchemist versus the other Artificer types... The Artificer in general is a good skillmonkey/adaptable subclass that can take on a variety of roles in a party. But Alchemist most aggressively favors taking on the role of healer, and while it does it well, there's not a lot of fun kooky stuff exclusive to the subclass that lets you experiment more with it. Having a dedicated construct ally like with Artillerist and Battlesmith drastically changes your entire playstyle, and Armorer basically lets you become a tank. Alchemist isn't helpless or anything, but it mostly does one thing better than the others, but it's one thing that isn't as interesting or gamechanging in a way that's obvious up front.
It is a very locked in niche subclass that is very underpowered when compared to others.
The sad part is I'm playing one now and still trying to find stuff to do that isn't. hope the elixer does something and isn't completely pointless. Maybe it gets better later.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artificers don't really have the same toolkit as Paladins or Rangers though, so comparing the two directly doesn't really make sense. Artificers (particularly Alchemists and Artillerists) rely on their cantrips in ways that Paladins and Rangers never would to begin with (and more than full casters too, for that matter)... And tbh, whether or not paladins get cantrips seems pretty immaterial to the original complaint anyways.
It's definitely not the end of the world balance wise, but it strikes me as problematic when the vast majority of artificers I encounter takes the same set of cantrips because the expectations of their class push them in that direction so hard and the sky wouldn't collapse if an artificer could have mage hand too. It just feels like another example of WOTC being unnecssarily conservative with the class' design.
This may be a hasty comparison on my part, but looking at the number of cantrips known a full caster like the Wizard will learn 5 cantrips at maximum from their class and a 1/3 caster like the Eldritch Knight will learn three cantrips at maximum from their subclass. The Artificer as a half caster seems to fit right inbetween the full and 1/3 caster by learning 4 cantrips at maximum from their class.
I would argue; however, that Artificers should gain access to their 3rd cantrip sooner than 10th level, as that is the same point the EK learns their 3rd cantrip.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Alchemists should have either gotten their extra Cantrips a bit sooner... Or if they really wanted to tie cantrips to a subclass to some extent they should have had you gain one when you gain the subclass. A set one for something like Battle Smith or Artillerist maybe or a your choice one for something like Alchemist and Armorer.
Though I personally don't feel Mending is really required for the Battle Smith. It's Thematically appropriate to the Artificer and it does have some out of combat usage. But with it's inability to be used in combat and nothing actually changing that for the battle Smith that I can recall. A battle smith might be better served actually taking something else for one of their cantrips.
What class feature for the Artificer makes them more capable at crafting mundane items than anyone else? The only thing I can think of is their huge amount of tool proficiencies paired with the (optional) uses for them in Xanathar's Guide to Everything but even then, a wizard would be capable of doing the same thing by picking up the correct tool proficiency from their background or a feat.
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 thought for a moment that the Magic Item Adept included a detail that all crafting takes a quarter of the time for an Artificer, but looking closer I see that it only applies specifically to magic items... a vial of acid is the same time sink no matter what. I thought for a second that Tool Expertise would be a factor as well, but the XGtE crafting system, as I recall, doesn't actually ask for skill checks... it's just a matter of time and money. Other than that the only skill they have really related to crafting is the fact that an Artificer can magically create any set of artisan's tools as long as they have some tools already, so at the very least they can save on the weight of carrying things, but that doesn't really make crafting mundane items any faster or easier. If anything it just adds time to it, since it takes an hour to create the new tools.
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
A few iissues here.
1) The Catapult spell only lets you target one object, so you can only use it to launch 1 vial of Alchemist's Fire or Acid. I am not sure if using Alchemist's Fire or Acid as part of Catapult qualifies for Alchemical Savant because it only grants a bonus to "one roll of the spell." The catapult spell itself only deals bludgeoning damage. The fire or acid damage comes from the object used, not the spell. I could see a DM being generous and allowing it to work this way, but I dont think it is RAW
2) The alchemist artificer does not have a way to add their proficiency bonus to attacks made with Alchemist's Fire or Acid. They would also need a feat to do like all other classes
3) You say "most classes can't have a mundane object as a spellcasting focus with proficiency" and I dont really see what the argument is here. Any class that relies on spellcasting foci have their own unique objects (instruments, wands, etc). I also dont see what you mean by "with proficiency." Do you just mean they are also proficient in using their tools whereas a wizard isnt "proficient" in using a wand?
4) The improved damage only applies to spells you cast, it doesnt apply to using the types of mundane objects we were discussing.
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 if my favorite artificer subclass. The only issue is elixirs don't last as long as things like cannons or defenders; however, those elixirs do add versatility worth the spell slots to select and create one.
Tool expertise.
Ability checks are the determination of the DM for the actions of the characters (or NPC's). It doesn't mean much if the DM isn't asking for the check, but if the artificers tries to, for example, craft acid that does more damage than the standard PHB equipment there's nothing that stops such an attempt and would be appropriate for the DM to set that check. It doesn't matter if the PC is trying to rush the job or improved the quality of the item -- that's when a check is appropriate and the applicable bonus comes into play.
This also applies to any other standard check with tools the DM might request. If my artificer is designing and building a wood structure the bonus to the check from tool expertise applies to the DC's listed in XGtE.
Sure, they get tool expertise which makes them more likely to succeed. I agree with that for sure.
My only issue is that it only makes them more likely to succeed on a check. It doesn't guarantee a reduction in cost or an improvement to the item. IIRC, successfully crafting an item only gets you that item without any chance of making an "enhanced" version. That comes down to DM discretion. So, I do not think that their tool expertise will allow them to "craft acid that does more damage than the standard PHB equipment" as you said per RAW for crafting.
It does, though, make them better at crafting than other classes. So I was wrong in my original statement.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The 5e system is based on DM determining the results of any action that the player attempts. The player declares an action and then the DM decides automatic success or failure (no roll needed) or requests a check. That approach removes the need for defined tables by empowering both DM's and players in what they might try to do.
Crafting exceptional mundane items versus climbing a wall or looking for secret doors doesn't change that basic premise. The DM might call "jumping the moon" on it or decide it's reasonable to just allow, or decide that crafting exceptionally potent acid is nearly impossible so throws a DC 30 at it but it's just another action like any other.
The only thing stopping a player from doing that is a player who doesn't bother trying. Just because something doesn't appear on the standard equipment list doesn't mean it's not in the game. It means it's not standard equipment and falls under that determination of the results. There are countless options not listed in the game that fall under that mechanic because it's a cornerstone of the edition.
EDIT: To illustrate what I would do as a DM, I would consider anything not standard to be a DC above 20 otherwise it should be standard equipment. In the acid example, I would likely increase the die by 1 step for a 25 DC and 2 steps for a 30 DC if a player tried to do something like that. There's nothing unreasonable in attempting to "build a better mousetrap" by a PC but the fact it's not standard already means it would be exceptionally difficult.
The experimental elixir really is as bad as everyone says. Especially considering that you don't know what it is until it is used. Pretty much negating the whole "they're mostly useful".
Technically you could create an elixir then spend the next 11 minutes ritually casting Identify per elixir.
As for the elixir's themselves, one is completely useless pre-combat (no damage), 3 are situational and 1 is extremely corner case. If you're in a situation where one would be useful, you're either going to take the elixir and do a random roll (failing 5/6 of the time) and then spend the spell slot if available, or just go ahead and spend the spell slot.
As the cornerstone of the class, it is really bad. How many other sub-classes get an unreliable ability?
The closest I can think of is the college of spirits, but they know the effect, positive or negate, and can target an appropriate creature and get bardic inspiration back on a short rest at 5th level. And that is just one thing a college of spirits bard gets at 3rd level. What do the alchemist get? An unreliable and mostly useless ability. Sure they get an expanded spell list but every artificer gets one.
I dont think theres anything in the language of Experimental Elixir that implies you dont know what effect the elixir will have when you produce the random elixir.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Oh, no, you know what the Elixir is when it's created. I think the wording of it is a bit confusing: " Roll on the Experimental Elixir table for the elixir's effect, which is triggered when someone drinks the elixir," I can understand why you might read that as the roll itself is triggered when someone drinks the Elixir, but what it's meant to imply is that, after a long Rest, the Alchemist can touch an empty flask and fill it with an Experimental Elixir... at that moment they roll on the table and know what Elixir is in the flask and it remains potent until they complete their next Long Rest. The "Trigger" just means that the known effect of the Elixir is activated by the act of drinking the Elixir. Kind of an unnecessary explanation... I don't think other Potions are described that way, but I think it's partly worded that way to avoid shenanigans by trying to utilize the Elixirs in some manner other than drinking them (like someone attempting to pour the flying elixir over an object to make it weightless).
I can't argue if you just don't find any of the Elixirs particularly useful, but they're a lot more reliable than you think, since you can safely know what each Elixir is long before consuming it, so you're not just gambling when you drink a potion and hoping that you happen to get the flight you need to complete whatever task you're in the middle of. Although it's still quite possible to get your free Elixir in the morning and end up with something that's completely useless for that particular adventuring day.
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
Nope,
Per RAW: "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can magically produce an experimental elixir in an empty flask you touch. Roll on the Experimental Elixir table for the elixir’s effect, which is triggered when someone drinks the elixir. "
The effect isn't triggered until someone drinks it. You don't know what it is until the magic is triggered. The whole identify is also varies by DM.
I don't know why you want the ability to be worse than it actually is, but no. Look at the order of operation. Long Rest, Touch Flask, Roll for Elixir. It does not say that you roll after drinking the elixir... the Roll overtly occurs before the trigger of drinking it. Keep in mind that the the subject of the Verb "Triggered" is not the Roll, but the Effect, and therefore the Effect is already known, because it's only determined after the Roll is complete.
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
Just because the effect isnt triggered until someone drinks it doesnt mean you are unaware of what it does.
The effect of a potion of healing doesnt trigger until someone drinks it either, but that doesnt mean that it only becomes a potion of healing WHEN someone drinks it. Your approach assumes this is some sort of Shrodinger's Elixir
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Semantics aside, and note I mentioned casting Identify.
It is still a random effect for your primary subclass ability. All else being equal (tool and spell list) the only alchemist affect where every other artificer gets something else - the Artillerist only getting a pet but it has 3 options and gets better.
The Elixirs get better as well... as you level up you're able to produce more free Elixirs each morning, and eventually all Elixirs have an additional Temp HP boost.
That said, I do agree that it's not as consistently useful a feature as what other Artificers get access to. Even with the eventual boost to the Elixirs, they basically amount to having a secondary pool of level 1 spells that are exclusive to the class and need to be prepped ahead of time. Even after unlocking the additional Temp HP boost to the elixirs, I still feel like an Artillerist who creates a Protector Eldritch Cannon will more effectively keep their allies alive.
Honestly, the Alchemist's best feature is probably Alchemical Savant, especially since they get access to Healing Word as a spell. It makes the Alchemist great as a reliable healer, making them almost as good as Life Domain clerics in pure healing potential, although with the versatility of the Artificer class.
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
I don't like Alchemical Savant because it almost forces the alchemist into the secondary healer. All those spell slots going to healing instead of participating in other way.
My primary issue is the alchemist is forced into that role, with no real other options, and doesn't do it well. And it is even worse when compared to a primary caster like: clerics, bards, or druids. Even paladins, warlock and sorcerer subclasses are better secondary support.
I think that's a pretty interesting point... Alchemical Savant also gives boost to damage from an Artificer, but an Alchemist is better served using their Cantrips to accomplish that instead of their leveled spells, since the boost in damage isn't as impactful as boosts on healing are, since the game is balanced in a way that healing is usually done in much smaller numbers than damaging. I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head with Alchemist versus the other Artificer types... The Artificer in general is a good skillmonkey/adaptable subclass that can take on a variety of roles in a party. But Alchemist most aggressively favors taking on the role of healer, and while it does it well, there's not a lot of fun kooky stuff exclusive to the subclass that lets you experiment more with it. Having a dedicated construct ally like with Artillerist and Battlesmith drastically changes your entire playstyle, and Armorer basically lets you become a tank. Alchemist isn't helpless or anything, but it mostly does one thing better than the others, but it's one thing that isn't as interesting or gamechanging in a way that's obvious up front.
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
It is a very locked in niche subclass that is very underpowered when compared to others.
The sad part is I'm playing one now and still trying to find stuff to do that isn't. hope the elixer does something and isn't completely pointless. Maybe it gets better later.