My newest character is a gnome artificer. Should I pick alchemist or battle smith as my subclass? Alchemist has better spells and more support options, but battle smith is more useful in combat.
Well, tHt really depends on what the setting your campaign is, what roles are needed in the party, what you enjoy, what your aims are. I went for Armourer, but out of those two, I'd go for Battlesmith. I would just enjoy that more, but that's me. Just because I prefer it, that doesn't mean that you.would too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Overall, the abilities for battlesmith are better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Battlesmith, mechanically, is generally more reliable. However, Alchemist can be really fun if you enjoy the random nature of the Experimental Elixirs. However, you kind of have to go in and willingly embrace that element to have fun with it... if you worry that you'll get regularly frustrated at getting an elixir that won't easily benefit you in whatever you're doing, then Alchemist can easily become one of the least satisfying subclasses in the game.
Generally: "rules as written" I'd say the battlesmith is "more reliable". But then again: the Artificer is probably more than any other class dependant upon your GM and "what they're willing to allow for" in terms of re-flavouring/modifying what you can do. Obviously for instance: if your DM requires that you actually seek out and keep tabs on your alchemy ingredients; then the alchemist can be a bit of a headache considering none of those things are actually accounted for "rules as written". On the other hand; if your DM is willing to let you have fun with it and craft your own potions then your team will benefit immensely.
Ya from a purely wargaming standpoint, Battlesmith is the more reliable one. I would not count Alchemist out though, as it can be an effective spot healer/secondary damage dealer. The random potions from Experimental Elixir can be annoying to keep track of on top of your spells and infusions, but they have their uses especially after level 9. Alchemical Savant is really useful in the second tier of play due to it buffing most of your damage cantrips/spells and healing, and due to the half-caster status of the class it doesn't degrade incredibly fast as you continue to level up. Restorative Reagents and Chemical Mastery are just strong due to the usefulness of Lesser Restoration and Greater Restoration, and they provide added healing for your elixirs and from Heal.
Plus as CaptainCorvid stated, if you can use your alchemy skills to make potions, Tool Expertise and Magical Item Adept can be a huge boon in terms of basic healing potions and any other potent potables you can think up in your down time.
I'm starting to lean more toward the battle smith as my subclass since my character is a rock gnome, so it would be more appropriate. The only problem is that battle smith is more combat oriented than alchemist and gnomes aren't typically a combat-oriented race.
I'm starting to lean more toward the battle smith as my subclass since my character is a rock gnome, so it would be more appropriate. The only problem is that battle smith is more combat oriented than alchemist and gnomes aren't typically a combat-oriented race.
Could always play into that as the reason for the battle-smith choice in the first place: your character deciding to make a metal buddy to do the up close fighting for him while slinging spells, potions and crossbow bolts from a safe distance.
I'm a fan of the Alchemist personally, but you have to go into it wanting to play a bit more of a support role and/or playing to the theme. It's what I usually call a session zero sub-class; you need to speak with your DM about what you want to get out of the character, especially in terms of brewing up potions and such, as it's an area of the game that doesn't have a lot of explicit rules (there are bits and pieces here and there, but your DM will be able to tell you if they're onboard with working out new things to make over time).
Battle Smith is fun to play as well though, and it's an easier sub-class to play if your campaign is likely to have a lot of combat, plus Artificer in general has good out of combat utility and Battle Smith is no exception; but yeah, it really depends on what character you want to play. Both will work for different characters (just as Armorer and Artillerist can work as well).
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.
Alchemist all the way. I have a gnome alchemist in a campaign and he's great. I'm enjoying using him as a catalyst. Last battle I gave our fighter +1 AC, +d4 to attacks, a bunch of temp HP, and hasted them whilst I hid out of sight throwing acid splashes.
For some people that sort of play is boring as they aren't the main character, but the party loves when misses become hits thanks to a boldness elixir. I have plenty of fun making my party better through drinking my performance enhancing elixirs; I'm like an Olympic cycling coach!
Depends, if you want to min max battlesmith is the way to go. But for how much flack the Alchemist gets, its actually not that bad..... I played a lvl 1 dip into life cleric at right after lvl 10. Made the orge strength replicate item put on some plate and was a pretty tanky support character. After playing him, I played battlesmith and now I rolled an Armorer.
Every Artificer wasnt the best in any one thing except the Armorer, I think that subclass is the best tank in the game.... But, if you have a little imagination the Alchemist is a fun class.
Alchemist all the way. I have a gnome alchemist in a campaign and he's great. I'm enjoying using him as a catalyst. Last battle I gave our fighter +1 AC, +d4 to attacks, a bunch of temp HP, and hasted them whilst I hid out of sight throwing acid splashes.
For some people that sort of play is boring as they aren't the main character, but the party loves when misses become hits thanks to a boldness elixir. I have plenty of fun making my party better through drinking my performance enhancing elixirs; I'm like an Olympic cycling coach!
Alchemist works well enough, but only as long as there are other party members to support. It wouldn't be as effective in a situation where you're all alone, like if the party splits up or the other party members die before you. I know you could just use your experimental elixirs on yourself, but you can only make a maximum of three of them, and the durations for all of the elixirs except healing are kind of short. Those reasons combined with the experimental elixir's being chosen randomly unless you expend a spell slot could make alchemist more of a liability than an asset.
...Those reasons combined with the experimental elixir's being chosen randomly unless you expend a spell slot could make alchemist more of a liability than an asset.
To be honest, the random nature of the elixirs isn't a liability at all. You get a free one, at random, and you know what it does. It's not a wild magic surge, it's the result of tinkering for an evening. "Oh, I have just enough spare mercury to make an elixir of resilience". Think of them as extra first level spells you have prepared.
Alchemist works well enough, but only as long as there are other party members to support. It wouldn't be as effective in a situation where you're all alone, like if the party splits up or the other party members die before you. I know you could just use your experimental elixirs on yourself, but you can only make a maximum of three of them, and the durations for all of the elixirs except healing are kind of short. Those reasons combined with the experimental elixir's being chosen randomly unless you expend a spell slot could make alchemist more of a liability than an asset.
I mean, while they might not be the best sub-class for a split party, they're not exactly helpless; they still have the same basic framework of all Artificers, and they have a good selection of spells. In fact, while there are specific spells I like a lot on other Artificer spell lists, Alchemist is probably my favourite list all round, and with Alchemical Savant nearly all of them are boosted as well (on top of your enhanced arcane focus if you create one).
Main problem for going it alone is that the Alchemist isn't going to excel in melee if enemies close the distance, but there are various cantrips that can enable you to hold your own on damage without needing multiple attacks, like Green Flame Blade if you want damage, or Shocking Grasp for the "taze them and run" option (always a favourite of mine).
But then a lot of characters are potentially worse off on their own; your average martial is in trouble if they're alone and facing a spellcaster for example as most don't in-built defence against control spells, and even those that do are limited. This is why you should avoid splitting the party at all costs (never do it willingly); of course I say that as someone who in campaigns is always the first to suggest splitting up, hoping that my group will one day learn to say no because I'm never the one to suffer the consequences. 😂
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 used to be a big advocate for BS but after running theorycrafting on Alchemist I really like it if multiclassed with say scribe wiz for the magic missle shennanigans or take 3 alch and the rest sorc to action drink a potion then bonus quicken a spell so you dont lose out on action economy. If your table allows UA then the haddozee race is fantastic for an alchemist and allows for great set up without resource loss. This does also depend on if the elixers are actually magical themselves (RAW no, RAI no clue). These set ups allow for some dmg numbers that make the alchemist way impactful.
Now I'm thinking about picking artillerist. How does that compare with alchemist and battle smith?
Artillerist tends to be the "blaster" of the artificers. Your "big thing" is a summon-able turret that can attack enemies or shield allies. Think Engineer from TF2 or Tobjorn from Overwatch a bit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My newest character is a gnome artificer. Should I pick alchemist or battle smith as my subclass? Alchemist has better spells and more support options, but battle smith is more useful in combat.
Well, tHt really depends on what the setting your campaign is, what roles are needed in the party, what you enjoy, what your aims are. I went for Armourer, but out of those two, I'd go for Battlesmith. I would just enjoy that more, but that's me. Just because I prefer it, that doesn't mean that you.would too.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Overall, the abilities for battlesmith are better.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert
Battlesmith, mechanically, is generally more reliable. However, Alchemist can be really fun if you enjoy the random nature of the Experimental Elixirs. However, you kind of have to go in and willingly embrace that element to have fun with it... if you worry that you'll get regularly frustrated at getting an elixir that won't easily benefit you in whatever you're doing, then Alchemist can easily become one of the least satisfying subclasses in the game.
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
Generally: "rules as written" I'd say the battlesmith is "more reliable". But then again: the Artificer is probably more than any other class dependant upon your GM and "what they're willing to allow for" in terms of re-flavouring/modifying what you can do. Obviously for instance: if your DM requires that you actually seek out and keep tabs on your alchemy ingredients; then the alchemist can be a bit of a headache considering none of those things are actually accounted for "rules as written". On the other hand; if your DM is willing to let you have fun with it and craft your own potions then your team will benefit immensely.
Ya from a purely wargaming standpoint, Battlesmith is the more reliable one. I would not count Alchemist out though, as it can be an effective spot healer/secondary damage dealer. The random potions from Experimental Elixir can be annoying to keep track of on top of your spells and infusions, but they have their uses especially after level 9. Alchemical Savant is really useful in the second tier of play due to it buffing most of your damage cantrips/spells and healing, and due to the half-caster status of the class it doesn't degrade incredibly fast as you continue to level up. Restorative Reagents and Chemical Mastery are just strong due to the usefulness of Lesser Restoration and Greater Restoration, and they provide added healing for your elixirs and from Heal.
Plus as CaptainCorvid stated, if you can use your alchemy skills to make potions, Tool Expertise and Magical Item Adept can be a huge boon in terms of basic healing potions and any other potent potables you can think up in your down time.
I'm starting to lean more toward the battle smith as my subclass since my character is a rock gnome, so it would be more appropriate. The only problem is that battle smith is more combat oriented than alchemist and gnomes aren't typically a combat-oriented race.
Could always play into that as the reason for the battle-smith choice in the first place: your character deciding to make a metal buddy to do the up close fighting for him while slinging spells, potions and crossbow bolts from a safe distance.
I'm a fan of the Alchemist personally, but you have to go into it wanting to play a bit more of a support role and/or playing to the theme. It's what I usually call a session zero sub-class; you need to speak with your DM about what you want to get out of the character, especially in terms of brewing up potions and such, as it's an area of the game that doesn't have a lot of explicit rules (there are bits and pieces here and there, but your DM will be able to tell you if they're onboard with working out new things to make over time).
Battle Smith is fun to play as well though, and it's an easier sub-class to play if your campaign is likely to have a lot of combat, plus Artificer in general has good out of combat utility and Battle Smith is no exception; but yeah, it really depends on what character you want to play. Both will work for different characters (just as Armorer and Artillerist can work as well).
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.
Alchemist all the way. I have a gnome alchemist in a campaign and he's great. I'm enjoying using him as a catalyst. Last battle I gave our fighter +1 AC, +d4 to attacks, a bunch of temp HP, and hasted them whilst I hid out of sight throwing acid splashes.
For some people that sort of play is boring as they aren't the main character, but the party loves when misses become hits thanks to a boldness elixir. I have plenty of fun making my party better through drinking my performance enhancing elixirs; I'm like an Olympic cycling coach!
Depends, if you want to min max battlesmith is the way to go. But for how much flack the Alchemist gets, its actually not that bad..... I played a lvl 1 dip into life cleric at right after lvl 10. Made the orge strength replicate item put on some plate and was a pretty tanky support character. After playing him, I played battlesmith and now I rolled an Armorer.
Every Artificer wasnt the best in any one thing except the Armorer, I think that subclass is the best tank in the game.... But, if you have a little imagination the Alchemist is a fun class.
Alchemist works well enough, but only as long as there are other party members to support. It wouldn't be as effective in a situation where you're all alone, like if the party splits up or the other party members die before you. I know you could just use your experimental elixirs on yourself, but you can only make a maximum of three of them, and the durations for all of the elixirs except healing are kind of short. Those reasons combined with the experimental elixir's being chosen randomly unless you expend a spell slot could make alchemist more of a liability than an asset.
To be honest, the random nature of the elixirs isn't a liability at all. You get a free one, at random, and you know what it does. It's not a wild magic surge, it's the result of tinkering for an evening. "Oh, I have just enough spare mercury to make an elixir of resilience". Think of them as extra first level spells you have prepared.
Gnome battlesmith can ride there SD. You can also infuse a lance to make it magical and charge all enemies while astride your mechanical chicken.
I mean, while they might not be the best sub-class for a split party, they're not exactly helpless; they still have the same basic framework of all Artificers, and they have a good selection of spells. In fact, while there are specific spells I like a lot on other Artificer spell lists, Alchemist is probably my favourite list all round, and with Alchemical Savant nearly all of them are boosted as well (on top of your enhanced arcane focus if you create one).
Main problem for going it alone is that the Alchemist isn't going to excel in melee if enemies close the distance, but there are various cantrips that can enable you to hold your own on damage without needing multiple attacks, like Green Flame Blade if you want damage, or Shocking Grasp for the "taze them and run" option (always a favourite of mine).
But then a lot of characters are potentially worse off on their own; your average martial is in trouble if they're alone and facing a spellcaster for example as most don't in-built defence against control spells, and even those that do are limited. This is why you should avoid splitting the party at all costs (never do it willingly); of course I say that as someone who in campaigns is always the first to suggest splitting up, hoping that my group will one day learn to say no because I'm never the one to suffer the consequences. 😂
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 used to be a big advocate for BS but after running theorycrafting on Alchemist I really like it if multiclassed with say scribe wiz for the magic missle shennanigans or take 3 alch and the rest sorc to action drink a potion then bonus quicken a spell so you dont lose out on action economy. If your table allows UA then the haddozee race is fantastic for an alchemist and allows for great set up without resource loss. This does also depend on if the elixers are actually magical themselves (RAW no, RAI no clue). These set ups allow for some dmg numbers that make the alchemist way impactful.
Now I'm thinking about picking artillerist. How does that compare with alchemist and battle smith?
Artillerist tends to be the "blaster" of the artificers. Your "big thing" is a summon-able turret that can attack enemies or shield allies. Think Engineer from TF2 or Tobjorn from Overwatch a bit.