Yeah, it's likely not the best choice of cantrip for An Alchemist. But the point I've been repeatedly harping on is that it does benefit from Alchemical Savant and you can make it work if you're so inclined.
Yeah, it works, but looking at these options and keeping to the original post don't you feel like they are objectively weaker than Battlesmith?
I mean you have to give up your shield and use str/dex to cast greenflame blade And you cant use the focus infusion and benefit from Savant. The only magical item you can use RAW as a focus is All-purpose tool.
I don't think Alchemist is as bad as some people believe it to be, but I also do think that is objectively weaker. You can always give your infustions out to your party, and often that is going to be much better. Repeating weapon on a ranger so they can use a shield and xbow, Returning weapon on a PaM paladin, so they have a range option and can throw a spear, then position so they get their reaction attack when the target comes in range. A homunculus can administer elixirs in combat as it's action.
That all being said, I still don't think that you can make the argument that the battlesmith isn't objectively stronger. To me it seems that optimizing an Alchemist only takes a weak subclass and makes it decent/viable.
while I am still in favor of the alchemist as having unique potential{ I still think its within "Power scope" }but is designed to leave a lower satisfaction at first appearance................. because of the history around its release. The "wayfinders guide" problems. originally wayfinders was released as an open beta (or work in progress). Somewhere along the lines the second book was planned. now there was some weird space where some people might only buy "wayfinders guide" and not Rising from the last war.
suddenly wayfinders guide went from all the artificer stuff > 2/3 of the artificer subclasses when Rising from the last war was announced > then finally published with only the alchemist.
I believe there was a direct choice made by wotc to make rising from the last war more appealing because they got more money from one book over the other.
True, but the spell still forces the use of a weapon for the casting and the subsequent attack.
Yes. It does. No disagreements here.
Using alchemy supplies means, per the spell, you have to attack with those same supplies.
No. That's an additional requirement you're reading into the spell. That specific requirement doesn't exist.
Alchemy supplies do not and cannot replace the weapon needed for Green-Flame blade. Adding "Alchemist Supplies" as an additional material component to the spell (per Tools Required) does not remove or replace the weapon component nor does it rewrite what the spell does. Using Alchemist Supplies to cast green flame blade does NOT mean the alchemist supplies have to replace the weapon brandished as part of casting the spell. It means that the spell has an additional material component when cast by an Artificer.
The components of Green-Flame Blade are:
Ordinarily (non-Artificer): S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp) When cast by an Artificer: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp, a spellcasting focus) When cast by an Alchemist seeking to get the benefits of Alchemical Savant: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp, alchemist's supplies)
When an alchemist casts the spell they need both a weapon and alchemist supplies in hand. Per the wording of the spell they brandish the weapon. Mechanically the alchemist supplies need only be "in hand" there's no requirement that the tools also be brandished or be used to make a weapon attack. What a player does when describing how they cast the spell is up to them.
When cast by an artificer - they may instead use an infused item (weapon) as the spellcasting focus.
I finally see where you're basing your argument. You're assuming that since you add a M (artificer tools) to the spell you can cast via it and any other items required. I'm focusing more on the limitations of the spell. "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you." Relevant point in bold.
That combined with the basic artificer spellcasting: "You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it)."
So the alchemist can cast the spell like normal (using an infused item). But because it is focused through the weapon used in the casting and subsequent melee attack it precludes casting using the alchemy supplies.
Personally in homebrew, I'd allow an alchemist to use a club/paddle as it can be justified as being part of an alchemy tool set as it can be used to stir a cauldron.
Yeah, it works, but looking at these options and keeping to the original post don't you feel like they are objectively weaker than Battlesmith?
I mean you have to give up your shield and use str/dex to cast greenflame blade And you cant use the focus infusion and benefit from Savant. The only magical item you can use RAW as a focus is All-purpose tool.
I don't think Alchemist is as bad as some people believe it to be, but I also do think that is objectively weaker. You can always give your infustions out to your party, and often that is going to be much better. Repeating weapon on a ranger so they can use a shield and xbow, Returning weapon on a PaM paladin, so they have a range option and can throw a spear, then position so they get their reaction attack when the target comes in range. A homunculus can administer elixirs in combat as it's action.
That all being said, I still don't think that you can make the argument that the battlesmith isn't objectively stronger. To me it seems that optimizing an Alchemist only takes a weak subclass and makes it decent/viable.
Pffft, trying to pull the thread back on topic.
I very much agree that alchemist is objectively weaker than the Battlesmith. Which isn't stating the Battlesmith is overpowered as Alchemist is also weaker than an artillerist and armorer.
I finally see where you're basing your argument. You're assuming that since you add a M (artificer tools) to the spell you can cast via it and any other items required. I'm focusing more on the limitations of the spell. "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you." Relevant point in bold.
That combined with the basic artificer spellcasting: "You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it)."
So the alchemist can cast the spell like normal (using an infused item). But because it is focused through the weapon used in the casting and subsequent melee attack it precludes casting using the alchemy supplies.
Personally in homebrew, I'd allow an alchemist to use a club/paddle as it can be justified as being part of an alchemy tool set as it can be used to stir a cauldron.
Again. Those two statements DO NOT PRECLUDE EACH OTHER. You can brandish a weapon with one hand and focus your spell through your tools held in the other. All as part of the same spell.
You're concluding that "brandishing a weapon as part of casting the spell" somehow contradicts "producing your artificer spell effects through your tools" for some reason and I find that a maddeningly weird conclusion to make. Or that somehow "You must have a spellcasting focus" means that you can't also have a weapon???
Brandishing something just means "waving it around." There's no special additional meaning that means "you can't also use tools" or that "your magic can ONLY be focused through this weapon and no other objects." It's basically using the hand holding the weapon to perform a somatic component of the spell. Literally nothing in the spell prevents you from using tools as a spellcasting focus for that spell unless your character only has one hand. No matter how many times you post the same text or format specific parts of it in bold is going to change the fact that the things you think contradict each other simply DO NOT contradict each other.
But you seem dead set on your specific interpretation against all efforts to explain so I'm going to stop attempting.
Read the spell, the part I've posted and bolded again and again.
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it."
The alchemist is holding 2 items the focus used to cast is the one used to attack. Not cast through one attack through the second. Cast and attack throgh the same spell focus as per the spell description.
If I were running I'd let the alchemist use alchey supplies to attack (either stiring paddle <club> or just improvised weeapon) to cast and get the + Int.
I work with contracts quiet a bit and the wording can be very finicky, hence why I focus on specifics. But that asside, lets get back to the original topic.
Besides alchemist, have the other subclasses been discussed.
Read the spell, the part I've posted and bolded again and again.
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it."
The alchemist is holding 2 items the focus used to cast is the one used to attack. Not cast through one attack through the second. Cast and attack throgh the same spell focus as per the spell description.
If I were running I'd let the alchemist use alchey supplies to attack (either stiring paddle <club> or just improvised weeapon) to cast and get the + Int.
I'll try to explain why this interaction works as clearly as possible:
There are four relevant sections of rules text we need to look at, the artificer's spellcasting section, the rules for material components and spellcasting foci, the alchemical savant feature and last but not least the rules for green flame blade itself.
tools required segment, from the artificer's spellcasting:
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See chapter 5, “Equipment,” in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
As you can clearly see, no matter what the spell we are casting is, the spell will require a spellcasting focus to cast the spell, no matter what artificer spell we cast the spell will involve a focus somewhere, but what does a spellcasting focus do exactly? The answers are found in the section for Material Components:
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
Excellent, as we can see, a spellcasting focus replaces the material components used by the spell except for those with a specified cost. If we look at the material component for green-flame-blade, we see that it requires 2a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece". This means that the melee weapon used as the material component for this spell is not replaced by a focus becuase the weapon has a specified value, in this case it must be worth at least 1 silver piece, and thus for a 1st level artificer to cast this spell, they need to be using a set of tools they are proficient in in one hand (the spell casting focus, an additional material component), and a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece in the other (material component not replaced by focus). If they try to cast the spell without the focus, they fail. If they try to cast it without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece, they also fail, just as how a wizard would fail to cast this spell if they tried to do so without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece.
if we now look at the wording of the spell
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.
there are two objects used in the casting of the spell, one of them is a melee weapon, one of them is not a melee weapon. Clearly, the text is referring to one of these objects, and not the other.
Finally if we now look at the wording for alchemical savant, it says the following:
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).
here, it is referring to the spell casting focus, ie alchemists supplies, and not the weapon, which is a material component for the spell but who is not considered to be a spellcasting focus.
for you to believe that this interaction does not work, you would have to believe that either:
artificers ignore all costly components
artificers cannot cast spells with costly components unless they find a way to turn that costly component into a casting focus
the material component of a spell is not considered to be "used in the casting", in which case this spell would not do anything for anyone casting it unless their weapon is a spell casting focus.
I work with contracts quiet a bit and the wording can be very finicky, hence why I focus on specifics. But that asside, lets get back to the original topic.
Besides alchemist, have the other subclasses been discussed.
all of us focus on the specifics, there is not a single person here who is ignoring or overlooking detail, we are simply interpreting things differently
As for other subclasses, yes that is what most of this thread has been about (although nobody has brought up Armorer yet)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
Excellent, as we can see, a spellcasting focus replaces the material components used by the spell except for those with a specified cost. If we look at the material component for green-flame-blade, we see that it requires 2a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece". This means that the melee weapon used as the material component for this spell is not replaced by a focus becuase the weapon has a specified value, in this case it must be worth at least 1 silver piece, and thus for a 1st level artificer to cast this spell, they need to be using a set of tools they are proficient in in one hand (the spell casting focus, an additional material component), and a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece in the other (material component not replaced by focus). If they try to cast the spell without the focus, they fail. If they try to cast it without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece, they also fail, just as how a wizard would fail to cast this spell if they tried to do so without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece.
The specific component called out in the spell replaces either the arcane focus or the component pouch.
if we now look at the wording of the spell
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.
there are two objects used in the casting of the spell, one of them is a melee weapon, one of them is not a melee weapon. Clearly, the text is referring to one of these objects, and not the other.
There is a component, the weapon called out. "the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it " The weapon costing at least 1 sp is the material component. Basic is the general material, either an arcane focus or component pouch. Some spells require other material composts, not additional material components. The artificier by default replaces a general arcane focus with thieves tools or other tool kits of which they are proficient.
Finally if we now look at the wording for alchemical savant, it says the following:
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).
here, it is referring to the spell casting focus, ie alchemists supplies, and not the weapon, which is a material component for the spell but who is not considered to be a spellcasting focus.
The weapon is listed as the material component. It is a listed specific component which replaces the generic arcane focus (alchemy supplies in the example) or component pouch.
for you to believe that this interaction does not work, you would have to believe that either:
artificers ignore all costly components
artificers cannot cast spells with costly components unless they find a way to turn that costly component into a casting focus
the material component of a spell is not considered to be "used in the casting", in which case this spell would not do anything for anyone casting it unless their weapon is a spell casting focus.
None of the above. The specific component replaces the general.
Lets change the example a bit.
Wizard/sorcerer/warlock/etc. is attuned to a wand of the warmage. They have the wand in one hand and a dagger (since everyone is proficient with a dagger) in the other. The cast either green-flame blade or booming blade. Do they get the + from the wand to their attack roll? And why?
The specific component called out in the spell replaces either the arcane focus or the component pouch.
Ah, there's your problem. That's not correct.
The specific component (with non-zero cost) cannot be replaced by a focus or pouch, but it doesn't preclude the use of a focus or pouch.
The actual quote from the PHB: "A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell." The component can absolutely be used alongside a focus --- nothing says it cannot.
(Otherwise, as has been stated, no artificer could use any spell with a non-zero-cost component.)
Nowhere does it say the specific component isn't replaced by By by the focus. a focus always replaces material components but there is a sub-rule. The sub-rule is costly components must still be present/possessed.(also another sub rule about supplying consumed components each time )
or a different way of saying it is, costly components are still replaced however there is a secondary exception saying you must still have the component to cast the spell.
Now I absolutely dislike posts that reiterate old information without at least something new so here is a thought.
An alchemist artificer Under the effects of Both elemental weapon and absorb elements could cast green-flame blade and get the +int 3x in one attack. it would be insanely rare but it is possible. you'll still probably get better cantrip choice out of acid splash with two targets or chill touch and staying at long range.
So instead we should start actually having dpr values posted for each class via most common builds, no feats only basic artificer features.
Nowhere does it say the specific component isn't replaced by By by the focus. a focus always replaces material components but there is a sub-rule. The sub-rule is costly components must still be present/possessed.(also another sub rule about supplying consumed components each time )
or a different way of saying it is, costly components are still replaced however there is a secondary exception saying you must still have the component to cast the spell.
Now I absolutely dislike posts that reiterate old information without at least something new so here is a thought.
An alchemist artificer Under the effects of Both elemental weapon and absorb elements could cast green-flame blade and get the +int 3x in one attack. it would be insanely rare but it is possible. you'll still probably get better cantrip choice out of acid splash with two targets or chill touch and staying at long range.
So instead we should start actually having dpr values posted for each class via most common builds, no feats only basic artificer features.
an alchemist using elemental weapon would not get much dpr out of it, since elemental weapon is an action and alchemical savant only applies to one damage roll
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
Excellent, as we can see, a spellcasting focus replaces the material components used by the spell except for those with a specified cost. If we look at the material component for green-flame-blade, we see that it requires 2a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece". This means that the melee weapon used as the material component for this spell is not replaced by a focus becuase the weapon has a specified value, in this case it must be worth at least 1 silver piece, and thus for a 1st level artificer to cast this spell, they need to be using a set of tools they are proficient in in one hand (the spell casting focus, an additional material component), and a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece in the other (material component not replaced by focus). If they try to cast the spell without the focus, they fail. If they try to cast it without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece, they also fail, just as how a wizard would fail to cast this spell if they tried to do so without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece.
The specific component called out in the spell replaces either the arcane focus or the component pouch.
let's look at the "tools required" section again, shall we?
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools.You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it).
as is clearly stated here, you must have a spellcasting focus in hand when you cast any spell with this spellcasting feature. The terms "Material Component" and "Spellcasting Focus" are not interchangeable, they mean different things. You can use a Casting Focus (or Component Pouch) as a substitute for non-costly material components, but that does not mean that they are the same thing. Casting a spell with a spell casting focus and casting a spell with it's normal material components are not the same thing, you are not "using the sword as the focus".
Essentially, what Tools Required does is the same as adding an non-costly material component that cannot be obtained to the list of material components needed for a spell. As if every single artificer spell added "a solidified sunbeam" to the list of material components of every spell. This imagined component then gets replaced by your focus.
In this case, Tools Required is the specific exception to the more general spell casting mechanics
Wizard/sorcerer/warlock/etc. is attuned to a wand of the warmage. They have the wand in one hand and a dagger (since everyone is proficient with a dagger) in the other. The cast either green-flame blade or booming blade. Do they get the + from the wand to their attack roll? And why?
if you look at the description for wand of the war mage, it says you gain the bonus for holding the wand, but the attack made using these cantrips is not explicitly stated as being spell attacks (unlike for instance, scorching ray or bestow curse), thus indicating that it is not a spell attack being made and thus it does not apply
The only two ways I've seen alchemist to be leveraged well enough to ender the lower part of mid tier optimization is either multiclass with wizard or warlock.
The wizard one is straight forward. nab the artificer initiate feat(so you can use wizard spells and still get the bonus damage) and use save spells like acid splash dealing half damage on misses. Won't wow anyone but it's solid.
The warlock is MaD and has a high risk/reward feeling. Basically you are going to grab 3 levels genie pact of the chain warlock as a tiefling. This allows you to add fire damage to any damage spell (booming blade mostly) and gets you short rest spell slots to use EE to cycles supplies forward. At some point you grab warcaster and flames of phlegethos and pray you don't see much fire immunity. Running around the front lines with lowish AC and smacking ppl with BB or GFB will probably get you hit a lot but thanks to maximized healing and lots of cheap ways to do it you will be ok most of the time. Pact of the chain also can get you a familiar with a familiar with SWT thanks to being able to use the command word. Utility wise this has it in spades.
while the wizard combo here does work, Alchemical Savant requires a damage roll that deals fire damage, something that genie cannot provide. It would help with flames of phlegethos, and if you choose your warlock spells carefully enough you should be able to avoid having any spells at all that require your charisma stat
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The only two ways I've seen alchemist to be leveraged well enough to ender the lower part of mid tier optimization is either multiclass with wizard or warlock.
The wizard one is straight forward. nab the artificer initiate feat(so you can use wizard spells and still get the bonus damage) and use save spells like acid splash dealing half damage on misses. Won't wow anyone but it's solid.
That telling at how badly designed the alchemist sub-class is. In order to be effective as anything but middling support and a mostly bad heal-bot, you have to multiclass.
Yeah, it's likely not the best choice of cantrip for An Alchemist. But the point I've been repeatedly harping on is that it does benefit from Alchemical Savant and you can make it work if you're so inclined.
Yeah, it works, but looking at these options and keeping to the original post don't you feel like they are objectively weaker than Battlesmith?
I mean you have to give up your shield and use str/dex to cast greenflame blade
And you cant use the focus infusion and benefit from Savant. The only magical item you can use RAW as a focus is All-purpose tool.
I don't think Alchemist is as bad as some people believe it to be, but I also do think that is objectively weaker. You can always give your infustions out to your party, and often that is going to be much better. Repeating weapon on a ranger so they can use a shield and xbow, Returning weapon on a PaM paladin, so they have a range option and can throw a spear, then position so they get their reaction attack when the target comes in range. A homunculus can administer elixirs in combat as it's action.
That all being said, I still don't think that you can make the argument that the battlesmith isn't objectively stronger. To me it seems that optimizing an Alchemist only takes a weak subclass and makes it decent/viable.
while I am still in favor of the alchemist as having unique potential{ I still think its within "Power scope" }but is designed to leave a lower satisfaction at first appearance................. because of the history around its release. The "wayfinders guide" problems. originally wayfinders was released as an open beta (or work in progress). Somewhere along the lines the second book was planned. now there was some weird space where some people might only buy "wayfinders guide" and not Rising from the last war.
suddenly wayfinders guide went from all the artificer stuff > 2/3 of the artificer subclasses when Rising from the last war was announced > then finally published with only the alchemist.
I believe there was a direct choice made by wotc to make rising from the last war more appealing because they got more money from one book over the other.
When cast by an artificer - they may instead use an infused item (weapon) as the spellcasting focus.
I finally see where you're basing your argument. You're assuming that since you add a M (artificer tools) to the spell you can cast via it and any other items required. I'm focusing more on the limitations of the spell. "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you." Relevant point in bold.
That combined with the basic artificer spellcasting: "You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it)."
So the alchemist can cast the spell like normal (using an infused item). But because it is focused through the weapon used in the casting and subsequent melee attack it precludes casting using the alchemy supplies.
Personally in homebrew, I'd allow an alchemist to use a club/paddle as it can be justified as being part of an alchemy tool set as it can be used to stir a cauldron.
Pffft, trying to pull the thread back on topic.
I very much agree that alchemist is objectively weaker than the Battlesmith. Which isn't stating the Battlesmith is overpowered as Alchemist is also weaker than an artillerist and armorer.
Again. Those two statements DO NOT PRECLUDE EACH OTHER. You can brandish a weapon with one hand and focus your spell through your tools held in the other. All as part of the same spell.
You're concluding that "brandishing a weapon as part of casting the spell" somehow contradicts "producing your artificer spell effects through your tools" for some reason and I find that a maddeningly weird conclusion to make. Or that somehow "You must have a spellcasting focus" means that you can't also have a weapon???
Brandishing something just means "waving it around." There's no special additional meaning that means "you can't also use tools" or that "your magic can ONLY be focused through this weapon and no other objects." It's basically using the hand holding the weapon to perform a somatic component of the spell. Literally nothing in the spell prevents you from using tools as a spellcasting focus for that spell unless your character only has one hand. No matter how many times you post the same text or format specific parts of it in bold is going to change the fact that the things you think contradict each other simply DO NOT contradict each other.
But you seem dead set on your specific interpretation against all efforts to explain so I'm going to stop attempting.
Read the spell, the part I've posted and bolded again and again.
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it."
The alchemist is holding 2 items the focus used to cast is the one used to attack. Not cast through one attack through the second. Cast and attack throgh the same spell focus as per the spell description.
If I were running I'd let the alchemist use alchey supplies to attack (either stiring paddle <club> or just improvised weeapon) to cast and get the + Int.
I work with contracts quiet a bit and the wording can be very finicky, hence why I focus on specifics. But that asside, lets get back to the original topic.
Besides alchemist, have the other subclasses been discussed.
I'll try to explain why this interaction works as clearly as possible:
There are four relevant sections of rules text we need to look at, the artificer's spellcasting section, the rules for material components and spellcasting foci, the alchemical savant feature and last but not least the rules for green flame blade itself.
tools required segment, from the artificer's spellcasting:
As you can clearly see, no matter what the spell we are casting is, the spell will require a spellcasting focus to cast the spell, no matter what artificer spell we cast the spell will involve a focus somewhere, but what does a spellcasting focus do exactly? The answers are found in the section for Material Components:
Excellent, as we can see, a spellcasting focus replaces the material components used by the spell except for those with a specified cost. If we look at the material component for green-flame-blade, we see that it requires 2a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece". This means that the melee weapon used as the material component for this spell is not replaced by a focus becuase the weapon has a specified value, in this case it must be worth at least 1 silver piece, and thus for a 1st level artificer to cast this spell, they need to be using a set of tools they are proficient in in one hand (the spell casting focus, an additional material component), and a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece in the other (material component not replaced by focus). If they try to cast the spell without the focus, they fail. If they try to cast it without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece, they also fail, just as how a wizard would fail to cast this spell if they tried to do so without a melee weapon worth at least 1 silver piece.
if we now look at the wording of the spell
there are two objects used in the casting of the spell, one of them is a melee weapon, one of them is not a melee weapon. Clearly, the text is referring to one of these objects, and not the other.
Finally if we now look at the wording for alchemical savant, it says the following:
here, it is referring to the spell casting focus, ie alchemists supplies, and not the weapon, which is a material component for the spell but who is not considered to be a spellcasting focus.
for you to believe that this interaction does not work, you would have to believe that either:
all of us focus on the specifics, there is not a single person here who is ignoring or overlooking detail, we are simply interpreting things differently
As for other subclasses, yes that is what most of this thread has been about (although nobody has brought up Armorer yet)
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The specific component called out in the spell replaces either the arcane focus or the component pouch.
There is a component, the weapon called out. "the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it " The weapon costing at least 1 sp is the material component. Basic is the general material, either an arcane focus or component pouch. Some spells require other material composts, not additional material components. The artificier by default replaces a general arcane focus with thieves tools or other tool kits of which they are proficient.
The weapon is listed as the material component. It is a listed specific component which replaces the generic arcane focus (alchemy supplies in the example) or component pouch.
None of the above. The specific component replaces the general.
Lets change the example a bit.Ah, there's your problem. That's not correct.
The specific component (with non-zero cost) cannot be replaced by a focus or pouch, but it doesn't preclude the use of a focus or pouch.
The actual quote from the PHB: "A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell." The component can absolutely be used alongside a focus --- nothing says it cannot.
(Otherwise, as has been stated, no artificer could use any spell with a non-zero-cost component.)
Nowhere does it say the specific component isn't replaced by By by the focus. a focus always replaces material components but there is a sub-rule. The sub-rule is costly components must still be present/possessed.(also another sub rule about supplying consumed components each time )
or a different way of saying it is, costly components are still replaced however there is a secondary exception saying you must still have the component to cast the spell.
Now I absolutely dislike posts that reiterate old information without at least something new so here is a thought.
An alchemist artificer Under the effects of Both elemental weapon and absorb elements could cast green-flame blade and get the +int 3x in one attack. it would be insanely rare but it is possible. you'll still probably get better cantrip choice out of acid splash with two targets or chill touch and staying at long range.
So instead we should start actually having dpr values posted for each class via most common builds, no feats only basic artificer features.
an alchemist using elemental weapon would not get much dpr out of it, since elemental weapon is an action and alchemical savant only applies to one damage roll
let's look at the "tools required" section again, shall we?
as is clearly stated here, you must have a spellcasting focus in hand when you cast any spell with this spellcasting feature. The terms "Material Component" and "Spellcasting Focus" are not interchangeable, they mean different things. You can use a Casting Focus (or Component Pouch) as a substitute for non-costly material components, but that does not mean that they are the same thing. Casting a spell with a spell casting focus and casting a spell with it's normal material components are not the same thing, you are not "using the sword as the focus".
Essentially, what Tools Required does is the same as adding an non-costly material component that cannot be obtained to the list of material components needed for a spell. As if every single artificer spell added "a solidified sunbeam" to the list of material components of every spell. This imagined component then gets replaced by your focus.
In this case, Tools Required is the specific exception to the more general spell casting mechanics
edit: actiually this is a fun interaction
if you look at the description for wand of the war mage, it says you gain the bonus for holding the wand, but the attack made using these cantrips is not explicitly stated as being spell attacks (unlike for instance, scorching ray or bestow curse), thus indicating that it is not a spell attack being made and thus it does not apply
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
while the wizard combo here does work, Alchemical Savant requires a damage roll that deals fire damage, something that genie cannot provide. It would help with flames of phlegethos, and if you choose your warlock spells carefully enough you should be able to avoid having any spells at all that require your charisma stat
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
That telling at how badly designed the alchemist sub-class is. In order to be effective as anything but middling support and a mostly bad heal-bot, you have to multiclass.