like, you guys seem to be forgetting both that you can expend spell slots to create new experimental elixirs and choose what elixirs you create, and that you are simply part of an party, with the power of all your class and subclass abillities you can take this almost parental role in the party, where you make peoples strengths stronger and cover their weaknesses. Oh, we have a monk in our party? here, have this potion that gives you magic 1d6 unarmed strikes with +1 to attack and damage. Oh, we need to go underwater? Here, an experimental elixir can fix that (alter self). Need to cross a wide chasm or ravine, perhaps even reach the top of an tower but nobody can fly? buoyancy potion, slow but effective. Oh, people are getting hurt, well time to use my spell slots for healing. We have an person in the party who is making a speed based build? well how about we give em some more, that potion also stacks with longstrider! is somebody ether lagging behind in ac or making a high AC build? resilience potion gives a little bit more ac, do we want to disguise ourselves but think that the disguise kit is not enough? once again you can make what is basically polyjuice potions for first level spell slots that allows for essentially biological changes to the body, someone is lagging behind in accuracy or saves? potion of boldness. As you gain levels, you become at 5th level as competent in casting fire bolt as an 10th level evocation wizard as well as letting you estore more hit points, at 9th level your potions become even slightly better and now it might actually be worth it to spend even second level spell slots on them if percived as nessesary, and as for the 15th level milestone it is great and also as you go along in artificer level you gain even more ways to support your party, is one of your party members feeling worried going into an encounter with an red dragon? here, let me borrow your armor and make a few adjustments to make you more fireproof using the resistant armor infusion, or here, allow me to fix something up and give you my int bonus to an ability check or an saving throw, with 11th level spell storing item one can temporarily gift the abillity to cast certain spells to your party, allowing you to let the fighter or the palladin or whatever cast warding bond or something, once more letting you adapt to more situations and letting you even out some of the flaws in your party members. Yes every other artificer gets spell storing item and flash of genius, but i feel like the thing that makes alchemist special is how it embraces the supportive role of the artificer, perhaps not the most exiting role to play yet also an important one, that allows for a lot of good roleplaying opportunities and oh god this became a rather long, ranting post.
The experimental elixirs only last 10 minutes.
Alter self for disguise: as long as you only need 10 minutes. Swimming or underwater, again only 10 minutes. Need to affect your party - expend all those spell slots.
The floating potion - sure, at tier 1 that sort of stuff comes up.
Healing? What healing, you've already used all your spell slots for everything else.
Support role? You mean the forced bad secondary healer role. You know the sub-class is bad when the only thing it can reliable do is minor support and heal (badly) sorry but the + int to healing potions doesn't justify a major healing role. Not when other classes heal much better and can target multiple targets.
I tend to agree with artificer. there is a decent space for alchemist but I don't mind hombrewing the free potions as selected instead of random.
passing around alter self is unique and has boons that disguise self cant do. Like beating physical inspections.
Longstrider has saved my Artificer several times (although i usually only carry a scroll and dont prepare it)
many early level problems where flight is necessary you only need one pc to solve the problem while holding a rope(with block and tackle) and the problem is solved for the whole team.
Stacking the potions with other concentration is nice. The int bonus could stack with life cleric making healing word insane.
I tend to agree with artificer. there is a decent space for alchemist but I don't mind hombrewing the free potions as selected instead of random.
passing around alter self is unique and has boons that disguise self cant do. Like beating physical inspections.
Longstrider has saved my Artificer several times (although i usually only carry a scroll and dont prepare it)
many early level problems where flight is necessary you only need one pc to solve the problem while holding a rope(with block and tackle) and the problem is solved for the whole team.
Stacking the potions with other concentration is nice. The int bonus could stack with life cleric making healing word insane.
One point about (1):
Which is you could pick any other artificer subclass, and choose disguise kit for your Artisan tool choice. And since you have Tool Expertise and Flash of genius... well thats (2xproficiency)+Intelligence to the DC to breach your mundane disguise that cant be seen through by detect magic, or a very very thorough search. Alter self from the potion is only really 10 mins water breathing to be fair. And cap of water breathing is an infusion option at L1...
you could pick any other artificer subclass, and choose disguise kit for your Artisan tool choice. And since you have Tool Expertise and Flash of genius... well thats (2xproficiency)+Intelligence to the DC to breach your mundane disguise that cant be seen through by detect magic, or a very very thorough search.
I think you're over-estimating the strength of a good disguise; the description of a disguise kit is specifically "a visual disguise", so the DC is purely for how well it holds up to purely visual inspection, anything more should really be at disadvantage (or advantage to the inspecting character). Alter Self does not fall foul of this because you physically are the person you're pretending to be. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and ideally you should be using both (a good quality disguise over Alter Self).
But more importantly; disguises take time, and they take preparation. Handing out a bottle of Alter Self means the party can transform themselves instantly into other people they may have only recent met, like a guard you just saw wandering off, so could be worth a try for getting past obstacles in the opposite direction, and don't need to be casters to do it.
The fact that other Artificers can be built to do a similar thing doesn't really devalue a feature the Alchemist has built in; it only further emphasis that they can do it more easily/quickly, and can even be built the same way to simply do it better. Now how does it stack up overall? That's much harder to say, as Artificer is already a class with a toolkit of possible ways to support a party, Alchemist has a few more, could probably do with some tweaks to make it easier to use, but it's still a perfectly good sub-class.
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.
you could pick any other artificer subclass, and choose disguise kit for your Artisan tool choice. And since you have Tool Expertise and Flash of genius... well thats (2xproficiency)+Intelligence to the DC to breach your mundane disguise that cant be seen through by detect magic, or a very very thorough search.
I think you're over-estimating the strength of a good disguise; the description of a disguise kit is specifically "a visual disguise", so the DC is purely for how well it holds up to purely visual inspection, anything more should really be at disadvantage (or advantage to the inspecting character). Alter Self does not fall foul of this because you physically are the person you're pretending to be. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and ideally you should be using both (a good quality disguise over Alter Self).
But more importantly; disguises take time, and they take preparation. Handing out a bottle of Alter Self means the party can transform themselves instantly into other people they may have only recent met, like a guard you just saw wandering off, so could be worth a try for getting past obstacles in the opposite direction, and don't need to be casters to do it.
The fact that other Artificers can be built to do a similar thing doesn't really devalue a feature the Alchemist has built in; it only further emphasis that they can do it more easily/quickly, and can even be built the same way to simply do it better. Now how does it stack up overall? That's much harder to say, as Artificer is already a class with a toolkit of possible ways to support a party, Alchemist has a few more, could probably do with some tweaks to make it easier to use, but it's still a perfectly good sub-class.
Handing out that potion of alter self is going to cost you a spell slot (~82% of the time). It only changes the person, not their armor, weapons or gear so hope you've already got matching armor, weapons and other gear on before you take that potion, otherwise its just been a waste. Or cast disguise self, again a 1st level spell slot and it lasts an hour.
This does not require a specialized build, disguise self is on the artificier's spell list.
yes but giving it to the barbarian (who never would take any options for spells because its suboptimal) Has value.
A lot of the artificer class value is the fact that it's "skills features and traits" are shareable. even to non casters. Alchemist should almost never use the alter self potion on themselves. they should use it in a way that brings value to the team. Alchemist is bets suited to support builds. in that space it has unique features no other class can do. (sometimes it can be replicated but not always. replication options don't devalue it)
yes put giving it to the barbarian (who never would take any options for spells because its suboptimal) Has value.
A lot of the artificer class value is the fact that it's "skills features and traits" are shareable. even to non casters. Alchemist should almost never use the alter self potion on themselves. they should use it in a way that brings value to the team. Alchemist is bets suited to support builds. in that space it has unique features no other class can do. (sometimes it can be replicated but not always. replication options don't devalue it)
I like the concept of alchemist. I've played an alchemist. I've DMed for battle smiths and artilerists. Mechanically the alchemist doesn't measure up to any of the othe sub-classes. The alchemist has a few potions that are useful, but almost always cost a spell slot (I loathe the random 'experiment' path they force all alchemists down). At tier 1 the combat effects are horrible as they cost the alchemist an action to create (which is spent early), then an item interaction and possiibly a move to hand the elixir off, then the other character an action to use. If you always have a round before initiative is rolled then a character might get useful boost.
The elixirs don't scale. Even at tier 3 when, for some completely odd reason, they grant temp hp it is lackluster at best and when compared to any of the other subclasses that hand out temp hp the alchemist is just pitiable. The forced support role is done better by as an add on of the artilerist.
Overall the sub-class is not balanced, doesn''t stick to theme, is locked into a single support role and doesn't even do it well.
Handing out that potion of alter self is going to cost you a spell slot (~82% of the time). It only changes the person, not their armor, weapons or gear so hope you've already got matching armor, weapons and other gear on before you take that potion, otherwise its just been a waste. Or cast disguise self, again a 1st level spell slot and it lasts an hour.
This does not require a specialized build, disguise self is on the artificier's spell list.
Disguise Self is also a visual only disguise that does not stand up to scrutiny, and it only works on yourself, plus it requires one of your limited spell choices to have it available. The Alchemist gets a shorter duration 2nd-level spell that costs only a 1st-level slot and which they can give to others.
Alchemist has its problems, but I wish people would actually be fair about what those are; people need to stop being overly harsh about Alchemist features while being overly generous to the alternatives, because that's not comparing the sub-classes at all.
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.
yes put giving it to the barbarian (who never would take any options for spells because its suboptimal) Has value.
A lot of the artificer class value is the fact that it's "skills features and traits" are shareable. even to non casters. Alchemist should almost never use the alter self potion on themselves. they should use it in a way that brings value to the team. Alchemist is bets suited to support builds. in that space it has unique features no other class can do. (sometimes it can be replicated but not always. replication options don't devalue it)
I like the concept of alchemist. I've played an alchemist. I've DMed for battle smiths and artilerists. Mechanically the alchemist doesn't measure up to any of the othe sub-classes. The alchemist has a few potions that are useful, but almost always cost a spell slot (I loathe the random 'experiment' path they force all alchemists down). At tier 1 the combat effects are horrible as they cost the alchemist an action to create (which is spent early), then an item interaction and possiibly a move to hand the elixir off, then the other character an action to use. If you always have a round before initiative is rolled then a character might get useful boost.
The elixirs don't scale. Even at tier 3 when, for some completely odd reason, they grant temp hp it is lackluster at best and when compared to any of the other subclasses that hand out temp hp the alchemist is just pitiable. The forced support role is done better by as an add on of the artilerist.
Overall the sub-class is not balanced, doesn''t stick to theme, is locked into a single support role and doesn't even do it well.
Only quasi-disagreement I would pose is that you don't necessarily have to use an action, object interaction, movement (or whatever the DM requires to allow it to happen) to hand off an elixir since you can pre-prepare them and hand them out to your party members at any point prior to combat. That's the benefit, being able to outfit your party with elixirs.
All of the other criticisms are completely valid. I really wish Alchemist was better from a mechanical standpoint.
I love the concept of an alchemist. I think over half my issue with the sub-class is how it forces a bad healing support role and the 'mad' alchemist stereotype.
I love the concept of an alchemist. I think over half my issue with the sub-class is how it forces a bad healing support role and the 'mad' alchemist stereotype.
I wouldn't say it forces a "role" as such. Artificers are already a support friendly class, though you can absolutely be selfish and focus your infusions on yourself if you want to. Both are valid choices for the Alchemist as well, and while Experimental Elixir's best value is in handing them out, you can likewise keep them to yourself if you prefer.
For healing you get everything you really need for free in the form of Healing Word and later Alchemical Savant; since you're a half caster you don't want to be trying to keep people's HP topped up, your focus is on bringing allies back up if they go down, which Healing Word is absolutely fantastic for with any kind of bonus. You also get free uses of Lesser Restoration, Greater Restoration and Heal at later levels, so there isn't really any burden to being a healer. It's possible to have +5 Intelligence by 9th level, so you're effectively getting bonus spells and up to seven "free" spell slots to cast them with; while your exposure to conditions is DM dependent, if you're never facing monsters that can inflict them then your more pressing problem is that your campaign is boring. 😝
Alchemist's added spell list is solid IMO, but I think the main problem for them is that the wider Artificer spell list just doesn't have enough acid, necrotic and poison spells to fully take advantage of Alchemical Savant. A higher level Alchemist with Elemental Bane can be great, but unless you're playing high level campaigns a lot of players aren't going to make it to 13th-level (or more realistically 15th or 17th when you can cast it more times). Absorb Elements is better for a melee oriented character to take full advantage of, and technically wouldn't work with Alchemical Savant anyway.
I think the main problem with Alchemical Savant for damage is that it feels like WotC forgot that the Artificer spell list is not the same as the Wizard spell list, so an easy homebrew "fix" for the sub-class is to just allow acid, fire, necrotic and poison spells from the Wizard list, as that gives you so many more options to take advantage of Alchemical Savant. We really need Chromatic Orb at the very least, and if you can pick that up using a feat it will make a big difference to any elemental build. I've also homebrewed a Chromatic Blade spell for the same reason, to help with a melee oriented build (though it doesn't strictly work with Alchemical Savant, but as a DM I'd allow it). On the plus side, if you do want to go melee as an Alchemist then Green Flame Blade works extremely well (solid cantrip damage, and you can pop Alchemical Savant onto one of the two targets).
I feel like people overly focus on the Experimental Elixir feature, but it's actually a fine feature at earlier levels, and scales at 9th-level (so within the 10th-level cutoff for many campaigns). The main problem is that people seem to trick themselves into thinking this is your only source of potions; an Alchemist should be making full use of alchemist's supplies at every available opportunity, the elixirs are a bonus on top of what you should already be churning out. Alchemist is also a prime candidate for the Poisoner feat to also brew up poisons for yourself and others, as well as bypass the fairly common poison resistance (to get more out of your poison spell options).
While I don't think the sub-class is perfect, I think it's fully playable and mostly fine as-is, you just need to be realistic about the types of characters you're going to use it to build. If I were to homebrew an upgraded version the things I'd change (on top of more acid/fire/necrotic/poison spell options) would be:
Move the third elixir to 12th level
Move acid/poison damage resistance and poisoned immunity to 9th or 5th; it's a fairly specialised defensive bonus so I think this would be fine.
Add the ability to choose your free elixirs at 17th.
But most of that doesn't really change the sub-class until later, because I think it's generally fine otherwise. One other issue it has is that it shouldn't be called "Alchemist", given that literally anyone with alchemist's supplies in this game is an alchemist, it should be called "Chemist" or something to disambiguate it a bit.
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 love the concept of an alchemist. I think over half my issue with the sub-class is how it forces a bad healing support role and the 'mad' alchemist stereotype.
I wouldn't say it forces a "role" as such. Artificers are already a support friendly class, though you can absolutely be selfish and focus your infusions on yourself if you want to. Both are valid choices for the Alchemist as well, and while Experimental Elixir's best value is in handing them out, you can likewise keep them to yourself if you prefer.
Neither option is that good. Being the 'healer' is done much better by 3 other classes (bard, cleric, druid); Support-healer by multiple sub-classes (divine souled sorcerer, any paladin, ranger).
Keeping the infusions to yourself and using all your own elixers still doesn't put you on the same level as an artillerist (temp hp, better damage), battle smith or armorer (both 2 attacks and can focus on either melee or ranged focused).
Being a support healer is just the best of multiple bad options.
For healing you get everything you really need for free in the form of Healing Word and later Alchemical Savant; since you're a half caster you don't want to be trying to keep people's HP topped up, your focus is on bringing allies back up if they go down, which Healing Word is absolutely fantastic for with any kind of bonus. You also get free uses of Lesser Restoration, Greater Restoration and Heal at later levels, so there isn't really any burden to being a healer. It's possible to have +5 Intelligence by 9th level, so you're effectively getting bonus spells and up to seven "free" spell slots to cast them with; while your exposure to conditions is DM dependent, if you're never facing monsters that can inflict them then your more pressing problem is that your campaign is boring. 😝
Lesser restoration at 5th level instead of 3rd, greater Restoration at 15th instead of 9th and heal at 15th instead of 11th. If you only compare through tier 2 then, every one listed above is a better option. Going tier 3 or four all the other classes are still better.
Alchemist's added spell list is solid IMO, but I think the main problem for them is that the wider Artificer spell list just doesn't have enough acid, necrotic and poison spells to fully take advantage of Alchemical Savant. A higher level Alchemist with Elemental Bane can be great, but unless you're playing high level campaigns a lot of players aren't going to make it to 13th-level (or more realistically 15th or 17th when you can cast it more times). Absorb Elements is better for a melee oriented character to take full advantage of, and technically wouldn't work with Alchemical Savant anyway.
Agree on the lacking spell list, but realistically, that +int for one target isn't worth building around unless you want to play a warlock and even then most of those also use hex.
I feel like people overly focus on the Experimental Elixir feature, but it's actually a fine feature at earlier levels, and scales at 9th-level (so within the 10th-level cutoff for many campaigns). The main problem is that people seem to trick themselves into thinking this is your only source of potions; an Alchemist should be making full use of alchemist's supplies at every available opportunity, the elixirs are a bonus on top of what you should already be churning out. Alchemist is also a prime candidate for the Poisoner feat to also brew up poisons for yourself and others, as well as bypass the fairly common poison resistance (to get more out of your poison spell options).
The reason people focus on it is because it is the defining feature of the sub-class. Alchemist pass out potions/elixirs - but they're all basically first level spells, don't scale and cost an action to use.
While I don't think the sub-class is perfect, I think it's fully playable and mostly fine as-is, you just need to be realistic about the types of characters you're going to use it to build.
That bar is way too low. It is playable, but then so is the blood hunter and the way of four elements monk.
Reminder: power is always contextual, and what option is the strongest overall is always subjective. The strongest melee build is only good as long as it is within reach of something to kill, the strongest archery build only good as long as it has arrows, the strongest spellcaster only good as long as they have resources remaining, spell components available and they aren't in an antimagic field, a feature letting you instantly kill one creature you can see with no save as an action is still useless fighting against 20 kobolds, an unkillable monstrosity who has conquered death and age will only be useful as long as it can contribute to the fight and still gets targeted by attacks, an brutal pvp monster could **** up an important social encounter, and a skill monkey could get their ass kicked in combat etc etc etc.
With that said there are several situations where playing an alchemist is clearly better than playing those other classes you gave as examples, for instance:
- fighting a group of melee only enemies, you could hover up with a flight potion and let your high ac tank take the doge action while you dispatch the enemy with ranged attacks from above, effectively solving the combat encounter with minial damage taken and resources lost
- an ally just dropped to 0 hit points near you, and your job is to cast healing word on them to give them at least 1 hp and take them back to the fight. An alchemist with 18 int could heal them for 1d4+8 hp, then use their remaining action to cast fire bolt for 2d10+4 fire damage, more than what another caster might accomplish with their own healing word + cantrip combo
- have a monk in the party? Giving them the effects of Alter Self is essentially equivalent to giving them a magic weapon, but without eating your concentration like the 2nd level magic weapon spell might
- alter self potions are also the only way to breathe underwater via spellcasting prior to 5th level (or at least to do so and provide it to fellow party members) and most healing classes have no means of doing so period
- arguably, some of these potion effects are better than 1st level spells, the fact that using them is not your action but somebody else's is certainly an advantage in terms of action economy (especially if you choose an humonculus servant infusion), and the fact that they aren't spells means that they also cannot be dispelled.
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
Being the 'healer' is done much better by 3 other classes (bard, cleric, druid)
Of course a full-caster is better at healing than a half-caster; they get more spell slots sooner and with higher level healing spells. This isn't an argument.
Support-healer by multiple sub-classes (divine souled sorcerer, any paladin, ranger).
Sorcerer again is a full caster so not really comparable; they don't get infusions, more magic items and all over the core kit of the Artificer, and that's because they get more spellcasting as standard. This is not news.
Meanwhile Paladin and Ranger aren't your competition, as a party with a half-caster in a healing/support role ideally needs two, since you're replacing a single dedicated full casting healer/support character.
However, compared to them the Alchemist has a number of advantages; first and foremost, it gets healing word, which is arguably the best in combat healing spell in the game, as it can be cast without losing your entire turn to bring an ally back up. Plus as an Alchemist from 6th-level you'll be adding your INT to the hit-points recovered, so it basically becomes a ranged, bonus action cure wounds (better actually, at 1st or 2nd level).
While Paladin has an edge on the out of combat healing thanks to its Lay on Hands pool, in combat it doesn't really want to be healing at all, because it's a waste of their damage output, which is also what they want to be spending most of their spell slots on.
Keeping the infusions to yourself and using all your own elixers still doesn't put you on the same level as an artillerist (temp hp, better damage)
That depends a great deal on what you do with them; an Alchemist can layer multiple elixirs at once for +1 AC, flight, +d4 to attack rolls and saves etc. If they do want to do healing they can use a Homunculus Servant to administer healing elixirs.
Lesser restoration at 5th level instead of 3rd, greater Restoration at 15th instead of 9th and heal at 15th instead of 11th. If you only compare through tier 2 then, every one listed above is a better option. Going tier 3 or four all the other classes are still better.
Do you just not understand what half casters are? I'm confused by this repeated line of argument. Obviously cleric (the ultimate class for building a healer) can make a better healer on its own, but the same is true of Cleric vs. Paladin, since Paladin is effectively a Fighter/Cleric multiclass minus the juggling.
Agree on the lacking spell list, but realistically, that +int for one target isn't worth building around unless you want to play a warlock and even then most of those also use hex.
It's not a single target, it's a single damage or healing roll; so it applies to every creature affected by an area effect. The main problem is that too many of the spells available don't deal immediate damage (so don't strictly apply), it would help if it was errata'd to work more like Elemental Affinity (any time you deal damage of a type or heal) as it would apply to so many more effects directly without the DM having to do Wizards of the Coast's work for them.
The reason people focus on it is because it is the defining feature of the sub-class. Alchemist pass out potions/elixirs - but they're all basically first level spells, don't scale and cost an action to use.
The thing is they're not just as good as 1st level spells; people think about the feature in the wrong terms.
What people don't appreciate about Alchemist, same as with Monk, is that versatility has value. While Artillerist, Armorer and Battle Smith all do one thing very well, that's pretty much all they do; Armorer is the exception in that Infiltrator armour can be used for stealth and such, but it's not a huge range.
The way to think about Alchemist's features are in terms of having more spells and spell slots than any other Artificer; Experimental Elixir effectively gives you six more spells known than any other sub-class, plus one additional 1st-level spell slot (and more later). Restorative Agents gives you an additional 2nd level spell known, and essentially up to four or five 2nd level spell slots to cast it with. Chemical Mastery gives you an additional 5th-level spell known, and a 6th-level spell, and a free spell slot to cast each of them with.
You can heal but you're not a dedicated healer, because you never actually need to spend a single one of your spell choices on a healing spell, you get all that you need for free; that lets you focus on damage, support and/or utility. Versatility is key.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The issue with the Alchemist being a half caster is that experimental elixir almost seems designed to be used by a full caster class. Additional elixirs can be chosen only if you expend a spell slot. More traditional half casters (Rangers, Paladins, Battle Smiths, Armorers) have weapons and Extra Attack to fall back on. Battle Smith's and Armorer's core subclass features do not rely on expending spell slots.
Having 1 additional spell slot is nice in theory... if it was a spell slot you had control over. RAW, You don't, that bottled spell comes precast. Sometimes it's useful. Sometimes it's not. It depends entirely on the day, the needs of the situation, the roll of the d6 die, whether or not the player you gave the elixir to even remembers that they have it, whether or not that player chooses to use an action to drink that elixir instead of using their own class feature, or whether or not your DM allows you to administer the elixir to other conscious creatures. (RAW you can only administer an Experimental Elixir to an unconscious creature. It's stupid, but that's what the RAW are.)
Effectively this extra spell slot is something like N/6 of a spell slot where N is the vague undefined number of elixirs that would be handy to have in a given adventuring day. I'll grant you that N is almost always more than 1 but N is rarely ever 6. So effectively we're looking at perhaps 1/3 to 2/3 of an extra spell slot. Better than no extra spell slot? Absolutely. But when your subclass relies on expending spell slots to produce elixirs that maybe won't even get drunk maybe you might understand why some of us are looking at the Alchemist's half-caster glass as half empty instead of half full.
Given that Battle Smith's and Armorer's subclass features are less reliant on spell slots in the first place you'd expect them to have more spell slots available for spell casting which they seem less likely to need. As half casters, they look half full.
At 9th level the alchemist's two free elixirs will always at least offer temporary HP, but until then if you want an elixir guaranteed to be useful in the scenario you're in you'll likely need to expend a spell slot. 9th level suddenly makes them a whole lot better to use but that's also a long time to wait assuming you started the campaign at lower levels.
The Alchemist is definitely a more versatile subclass, but Experimental Elixir (assuming you use it) can also make it somewhat anemic and that's on top of being a not-half-martial half-caster already.
And finally, because I've ended up in nowhere arguments about this stuff in the past, I do not hate the alchemist. I'm just trying to look at how it is RAW as objectively as I can with the least amount of assumptions about what will go down in a campaign while still being aware of the possibilities. The alchemist is still my favorite artificer subclass if only because it has the most added use for my favorite artificer infusion, the Homunculus Servant. So note, while I am definitely complaining, I do it out of love and frustration not hate.
Effectively this extra spell slot is something like N/6 of a spell slot where N is the vague undefined number of elixirs that would be handy to have in a given adventuring day. I'll grant you that N is almost always more than 1 but N is rarely ever 6.
The N value is at worst 3, as if we assume you'll have at least one combat encounter then the only situational options are Swiftness, Flight and Transformation, and even then the first two of these are still usable (give Flight to a ranged character or use it yourself to get to a vantage point, or give Swiftness to a melee character who needs to close quickly), so it's really 5/6 and only if you envision finding no way to make use of alter self over the course of an adventuring day, which is really up to you (why sneak past a guard when you can just be someone who's allowed to be there etc.).
So it's basically always at least nearly 6, and from 6th level you're getting two free elixirs, so even if we assume it's not quite a free spell slot at 3rd, it's almost always at least one from 6th unless you're very unlucky. Even then it's still up to you what you do with it; so you got two Transformation elixirs, guess you'll be sneaking in someplace as a couple, or now two can go underwater, or you've got one to get in, and one to get out again etc.
IMO the only real mechanical problem with Experimental Elixirs is that RAW you can only administer them to someone else if they're incapacitated, which is a little annoying, as otherwise you could administer them yourself as needed, rather than handing them out, or even better using a Homunculus Servant (which I expect most Alchemists are going to have), especially since it's just too characterful to have such a weird condition to prevent it. The only other low level change is either add more same turn acid/fire/necrotic/poison area spells to the artificer list to benefit from Alchemical Savant, or tweak Alchemical Savant to work on later turns (e.g- once per turn when a spell you cast rolls for healing or acid, fire, necrotic or poison damage, you can add your INT modifier to the roll) so it's not limited to only a few spells; this isn't a major problem as the few spells are decent (it even works with green-flame blade if you want to be a bit more "hands on" in your support), but it'd be nice to have more choice.
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.
Being the 'healer' is done much better by 3 other classes (bard, cleric, druid)
Of course a full-caster is better at healing than a half-caster; they get more spell slots sooner and with higher level healing spells. This isn't an argument.
Support-healer by multiple sub-classes (divine souled sorcerer, any paladin, ranger).
Sorcerer again is a full caster so not really comparable; they don't get infusions, more magic items and all over the core kit of the Artificer, and that's because they get more spellcasting as standard. This is not news.
Meanwhile Paladin and Ranger aren't your competition, as a party with a half-caster in a healing/support role ideally needs two, since you're replacing a single dedicated full casting healer/support character.
My point is if you're going to play a support caster, there are better choices where the alchemist doesn't measure up at all. Then if you want to compare only half casters the ranger and paladin are competition (I was grouping divine sorcerer to half since I"m assuming they would be secondary support). They're half casters and still have a full complement of other class abilities. Healing word is great, but not having it doesn't negate either classes as support healers.
However, compared to them the Alchemist has a number of advantages; first and foremost, it gets healing word, which is arguably the best in combat healing spell in the game, as it can be cast without losing your entire turn to bring an ally back up. Plus as an Alchemist from 6th-level you'll be adding your INT to the hit-points recovered, so it basically becomes a ranged, bonus action cure wounds (better actually, at 1st or 2nd level).
While Paladin has an edge on the out of combat healing thanks to its Lay on Hands pool, in combat it doesn't really want to be healing at all, because it's a waste of their damage output, which is also what they want to be spending most of their spell slots on.
Keeping the infusions to yourself and using all your own elixers still doesn't put you on the same level as an artillerist (temp hp, better damage)
That depends a great deal on what you do with them; an Alchemist can layer multiple elixirs at once for +1 AC, flight, +d4 to attack rolls and saves etc. If they do want to do healing they can use a Homunculus Servant to administer healing elixirs.
And using the elixir, your spells sots and your infusions and you still aren't as effective as either of the other sub-classes.
Lesser restoration at 5th level instead of 3rd, greater Restoration at 15th instead of 9th and heal at 15th instead of 11th. If you only compare through tier 2 then, every one listed above is a better option. Going tier 3 or four all the other classes are still better.
Do you just not understand what half casters are? I'm confused by this repeated line of argument. Obviously cleric (the ultimate class for building a healer) can make a better healer on its own, but the same is true of Cleric vs. Paladin, since Paladin is effectively a Fighter/Cleric multiclass minus the juggling.
You're argument is that alchemist make healers. You keep comparing that they're more spell caster focused but when comparing them to an actual spellcaster they fall short. When comparing them to a half spell caster they fall short.
Agree on the lacking spell list, but realistically, that +int for one target isn't worth building around unless you want to play a warlock and even then most of those also use hex.
It's not a single target, it's a single damage or healing roll; so it applies to every creature affected by an area effect. The main problem is that too many of the spells available don't deal immediate damage (so don't strictly apply), it would help if it was errata'd to work more like Elemental Affinity (any time you deal damage of a type or heal) as it would apply to so many more effects directly without the DM having to do Wizards of the Coast's work for them.
It would help if the rules were clearer on it, empowered evocation and other similar abilities. There are what 2 cantrips and 5 spells total that benefit from it on the artificier/alchemist spell list. The ability itself is very underwhelming. Everyone points out how great it is with healing word because that's really the only use that even starts to stand out. Cast acid splash + int, poison spray + int doesn't make up for a second attack (battle smith, armorer) or an extra 2d8 attack or temp hp or a small AoE. Adding it to a spell doesn't make it any better.
The reason people focus on it is because it is the defining feature of the sub-class. Alchemist pass out potions/elixirs - but they're all basically first level spells, don't scale and cost an action to use.
The thing is they're not just as good as 1st level spells; people think about the feature in the wrong terms.
What people don't appreciate about Alchemist, same as with Monk, is that versatility has value. While Artillerist, Armorer and Battle Smith all do one thing very well, that's pretty much all they do; Armorer is the exception in that Infiltrator armour can be used for stealth and such, but it's not a huge range.
The artillerist offers group temp hp or a second attack or a small AoE for free for an hour. Then spend a spell slot and do it another hour.
The battle smith and armorer can do both melee and ranged, have a second attack, the same number of spell slots, etc.
How are people supposed to think about alchemists? Per the rules they're all wild haired mad idiots. The other artificers are consistent (armor, steel defender, cannon) and that is what defines their subclass. The alchemist's defining characteristic is unreliability?
The way to think about Alchemist's features are in terms of having more spells and spell slots than any other Artificer; Experimental Elixir effectively gives you six more spells known than any other sub-class, plus one additional 1st-level spell slot (and more later). Restorative Agents gives you an additional 2nd level spell known, and essentially up to four or five 2nd level spell slots to cast it with. Chemical Mastery gives you an additional 5th-level spell known, and a 6th-level spell, and a free spell slot to cast each of them with.
An unreliable and useless elixir doesn't equal a spell slot. Again you're going to be spending a spell slot 82% of the time, if you want a specific effect. Having an elixir that could be used is not the same as actually having another character use them. 9 levels of alchemist and my elixirs were used effectively twice. Because people don't want to spend their action taking an elixir for a minor benefit instead of using their class abilities. Sure if you're got setup time, but even then you only get 1 or 2 elixirs and the majority of the time they're not going to be what you want or need.
If the elixirs
1) Not random (I think that's the dumbest thing for what is supposed to be a steampunk chemist - why random on a long rest when the character would have hours to prepare yet can be made/finished on demand in 6 seconds with a spell slot)
2) Didn't cost the other character an action to use (maybe cost the alchemist a bonus action to administer - have they never heard of injections, or topical applications)
3) The elixirs scale similar to the other sub-class abilities (more healing, longer duration, faster speed/flight, more ac)
You can heal but you're not a dedicated healer, because you never actually need to spend a single one of your spell choices on a healing spell, you get all that you need for free; that lets you focus on damage, support and/or utility. Versatility is key.
That's what I keep coming around to. You're not a dedicated healer the alchemist doesn't measure up at all. However, even as a secondary healer the alchemist doesn't measure up (paladin, ranger). Comparing them to the other artificier subclasses - they still aren't as effective.
My point is if you're going to play a support caster, there are better choices where the alchemist doesn't measure up at all.
It's a half-caster, not a full-caster; by that same logic it's possibly to build a better damage-dealer than the Artillerist using Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard. You don't play a half-caster because you want to be better than a full-caster at what they're good at, you play a half-caster so you can mix and match.
Alchemist gets a more than competitive amount of healing as a half-caster, and that's on top of the toolkit of Artificer and the freedom to focus more on support and/or utility as you please. You don't need to be a dedicated healer to use some healing, and as I have said what now feels like a billion times, you get all that you need for free. Not a single one of your spell choices needs to be spent on healing. Not one.
I really don't want to have to write an essay explaining half-casters to you on top of everything else.
The artillerist offers group temp hp or a second attack or a small AoE for free for an hour. Then spend a spell slot and do it another hour.
It's not free; it costs your bonus action every turn you want to move and/or use it, the Protector and Flamethrower variants are both extremely short-ranged and slow making positioning a lot more difficult unless you carry it (in which case it occupies your hand). The Protector requires your party to bunch up for an average 8-9 temporary hit-points which limits how useful it really is in practice (and it doesn't scale, which is actually unlike elixirs).
The Force Ballista is actually the best of the three unless your DM is super lenient; it's a decent extra attack, but that's all it is until it provides cover (but even then, where you place it or yourself remains an issue).
Ultimately it only lets the Artillerist do one thing (combat) well; the turrets have no real out of combat utility. To be clear, I'm not dissing the Artillerist, it's a fine sub-class, but it only really does one thing as a sub-class.
An unreliable and useless elixir doesn't equal a spell slot.
They are literally neither unreliable or useless.
Alchemist gets six 1st-level effects they can use on demand, without concentration on any of them; in other words they know six more spells than any other Artificer sub-class or half-caster (and more than some full-casters). You get one of these for free albeit randomised, but there's only one properly situational effect, Transformation, and even that should be usable during most adventuring days. You get a second free elixir from 6th-level, you get an additional 2nd-level spell at 9th (plus up to 5 free spell slots to use it), then a 5th and a 6th-level (which no other half caster gets) at 15th-level plus another two slots to use those.
The Alchemist effectively maxes out at 24 spells known and the equivalent of 25 spell slots (15 basic + 3 elixirs + 5 lesser restoration + greater restoration + heal); they're not up to the same spell slot level as a full caster, but way more than any other half caster, they're basically the game's only two-thirds caster. On a character that still has full access to infusions, magic item attunement, tool expertise etc. etc. They're a part Artificer, part Cleric, part Wizard multiclass and it works just fine with that in mind.
Of course the alchemist looks weak if you start by utterly refusing to see any of what it does. But I have no further interest in repeating these points again and again; if you're not going to listen to them anyway, then why bother?
To be fair, I should know better than to participate in these kind of threads, it's always pointless, and the word "objectively" in the title was a trap from the start as nobody wants to actually discuss these things objectively; they just want to repeat their biases and for other people to agree with them.
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 want to note that this is coming from a player who has played a Battle smith from levels 1-8 in an existing campaign:
Any time you have to argue hard to explain why a class or subclass is good, then it's bad. 'But I can use thus and so to disguise the party.' That's...nice I guess? Seriously...if you really need to disguise your whole party that often, then you do you but my group seldom has that need.
Having a class or subclass that is better in some circumstances and not as good in others is not only fine, it's to be expected. If this were not the case, there would be no reason for classes and subs. However, when you have to build corner-case circumstances where your favorite class or subclass is on-par with others (not good, not great, just on-par), then that class or subclass is not good.
Think about it...one of the reasons that Rangers were so badly treated before Tasha's was that many of their innate abilities only worked in their preferred terrain. The Beast-Master subclass was a flat joke. You never hear anyone saying 'Fighters suck' because even if some of their subs aren't stellar, the core class is good. These debates have gone back and forth since about ten minutes after D&DB came online.
I've never played an Artillerist but I can do math and theirs is pretty solid. There is a versatility there that the other two don't have ('we have a party full of shooters today so I'll do support!).
I'm not sure where the Battle Smith contributors are getting their numbers for damage output though. Mine uses a Light Crossbow infused with Repeating Shot. At level 3 (when I picked my sub) I became able to use my Int bonus (+3) instead of my Dex bonus of +2 for the weapon which the infusion had already granted a +1. So I'm doing a D8+4 which is perfectly in line with other classes. By level 5 I get a second attack (and with my ASI I also had a +4 Int Bonus) so that's 2 attacks at +8 to hit and 1D8+5 damage in addition to using my Bonus Action to order my Steel Defender to attack for another 1D8+3 damage with +5 to hit. Yes, this means that Harley's Deflect Attack ability won't work on me but I usually put him next to the Barbarian to make one enemy attack less likely to hit. Our party is also working with a batch of +1 bolts that I made so I'm technically at +9/+6 but not everyone will have magic ammo.
So, at level 8 (with my second ASI), I'm shooting at +9 or better to hit, with 2 attacks at 1D8+6 damage, as well as my SD who has 1D8+3 damage at +5 to hit. These numbers are fine when stacked up against the typical damage-dealing class like the Fighter, the Ranger, or the Barbarian. Sure, a Wizard CAN still cast Fireball but that spell is an outlier by design and the Devs have said as much. All of this is in addition to the fact that I have a Homunculus flitting around the battlefield that enables me to cast Cure Wounds (to top people off) or a Touch Cantrip like Shocking Grasp for added damage.
When the Artificer class first became a thing, I took one look at the Alchemist subclass and thought 'well...THAT sucks' and my opinion has not changed. Sure, in some campaigns, in some circumstances, the Alchemist will be great. However, the fact that I have to qualify that statement tells me that the subclass, RAW, is simply not good when compared to others that can do the job as well or better.
The experimental elixirs only last 10 minutes.
Alter self for disguise: as long as you only need 10 minutes. Swimming or underwater, again only 10 minutes. Need to affect your party - expend all those spell slots.
The floating potion - sure, at tier 1 that sort of stuff comes up.
Healing? What healing, you've already used all your spell slots for everything else.
Support role? You mean the forced bad secondary healer role. You know the sub-class is bad when the only thing it can reliable do is minor support and heal (badly) sorry but the + int to healing potions doesn't justify a major healing role. Not when other classes heal much better and can target multiple targets.
I tend to agree with artificer. there is a decent space for alchemist but I don't mind hombrewing the free potions as selected instead of random.
One point about (1):
Which is you could pick any other artificer subclass, and choose disguise kit for your Artisan tool choice. And since you have Tool Expertise and Flash of genius... well thats (2xproficiency)+Intelligence to the DC to breach your mundane disguise that cant be seen through by detect magic, or a very very thorough search. Alter self from the potion is only really 10 mins water breathing to be fair. And cap of water breathing is an infusion option at L1...
I think you're over-estimating the strength of a good disguise; the description of a disguise kit is specifically "a visual disguise", so the DC is purely for how well it holds up to purely visual inspection, anything more should really be at disadvantage (or advantage to the inspecting character). Alter Self does not fall foul of this because you physically are the person you're pretending to be. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and ideally you should be using both (a good quality disguise over Alter Self).
But more importantly; disguises take time, and they take preparation. Handing out a bottle of Alter Self means the party can transform themselves instantly into other people they may have only recent met, like a guard you just saw wandering off, so could be worth a try for getting past obstacles in the opposite direction, and don't need to be casters to do it.
The fact that other Artificers can be built to do a similar thing doesn't really devalue a feature the Alchemist has built in; it only further emphasis that they can do it more easily/quickly, and can even be built the same way to simply do it better. Now how does it stack up overall? That's much harder to say, as Artificer is already a class with a toolkit of possible ways to support a party, Alchemist has a few more, could probably do with some tweaks to make it easier to use, but it's still a perfectly good sub-class.
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.
Handing out that potion of alter self is going to cost you a spell slot (~82% of the time). It only changes the person, not their armor, weapons or gear so hope you've already got matching armor, weapons and other gear on before you take that potion, otherwise its just been a waste. Or cast disguise self, again a 1st level spell slot and it lasts an hour.
This does not require a specialized build, disguise self is on the artificier's spell list.
yes but giving it to the barbarian (who never would take any options for spells because its suboptimal) Has value.
A lot of the artificer class value is the fact that it's "skills features and traits" are shareable. even to non casters. Alchemist should almost never use the alter self potion on themselves. they should use it in a way that brings value to the team. Alchemist is bets suited to support builds. in that space it has unique features no other class can do. (sometimes it can be replicated but not always. replication options don't devalue it)
I like the concept of alchemist. I've played an alchemist. I've DMed for battle smiths and artilerists. Mechanically the alchemist doesn't measure up to any of the othe sub-classes. The alchemist has a few potions that are useful, but almost always cost a spell slot (I loathe the random 'experiment' path they force all alchemists down). At tier 1 the combat effects are horrible as they cost the alchemist an action to create (which is spent early), then an item interaction and possiibly a move to hand the elixir off, then the other character an action to use. If you always have a round before initiative is rolled then a character might get useful boost.
The elixirs don't scale. Even at tier 3 when, for some completely odd reason, they grant temp hp it is lackluster at best and when compared to any of the other subclasses that hand out temp hp the alchemist is just pitiable. The forced support role is done better by as an add on of the artilerist.
Overall the sub-class is not balanced, doesn''t stick to theme, is locked into a single support role and doesn't even do it well.
Disguise Self is also a visual only disguise that does not stand up to scrutiny, and it only works on yourself, plus it requires one of your limited spell choices to have it available. The Alchemist gets a shorter duration 2nd-level spell that costs only a 1st-level slot and which they can give to others.
Alchemist has its problems, but I wish people would actually be fair about what those are; people need to stop being overly harsh about Alchemist features while being overly generous to the alternatives, because that's not comparing the sub-classes at all.
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.
Only quasi-disagreement I would pose is that you don't necessarily have to use an action, object interaction, movement (or whatever the DM requires to allow it to happen) to hand off an elixir since you can pre-prepare them and hand them out to your party members at any point prior to combat. That's the benefit, being able to outfit your party with elixirs.
All of the other criticisms are completely valid. I really wish Alchemist was better from a mechanical standpoint.
I love the concept of an alchemist. I think over half my issue with the sub-class is how it forces a bad healing support role and the 'mad' alchemist stereotype.
I wouldn't say it forces a "role" as such. Artificers are already a support friendly class, though you can absolutely be selfish and focus your infusions on yourself if you want to. Both are valid choices for the Alchemist as well, and while Experimental Elixir's best value is in handing them out, you can likewise keep them to yourself if you prefer.
For healing you get everything you really need for free in the form of Healing Word and later Alchemical Savant; since you're a half caster you don't want to be trying to keep people's HP topped up, your focus is on bringing allies back up if they go down, which Healing Word is absolutely fantastic for with any kind of bonus. You also get free uses of Lesser Restoration, Greater Restoration and Heal at later levels, so there isn't really any burden to being a healer. It's possible to have +5 Intelligence by 9th level, so you're effectively getting bonus spells and up to seven "free" spell slots to cast them with; while your exposure to conditions is DM dependent, if you're never facing monsters that can inflict them then your more pressing problem is that your campaign is boring. 😝
Alchemist's added spell list is solid IMO, but I think the main problem for them is that the wider Artificer spell list just doesn't have enough acid, necrotic and poison spells to fully take advantage of Alchemical Savant. A higher level Alchemist with Elemental Bane can be great, but unless you're playing high level campaigns a lot of players aren't going to make it to 13th-level (or more realistically 15th or 17th when you can cast it more times). Absorb Elements is better for a melee oriented character to take full advantage of, and technically wouldn't work with Alchemical Savant anyway.
I think the main problem with Alchemical Savant for damage is that it feels like WotC forgot that the Artificer spell list is not the same as the Wizard spell list, so an easy homebrew "fix" for the sub-class is to just allow acid, fire, necrotic and poison spells from the Wizard list, as that gives you so many more options to take advantage of Alchemical Savant. We really need Chromatic Orb at the very least, and if you can pick that up using a feat it will make a big difference to any elemental build. I've also homebrewed a Chromatic Blade spell for the same reason, to help with a melee oriented build (though it doesn't strictly work with Alchemical Savant, but as a DM I'd allow it). On the plus side, if you do want to go melee as an Alchemist then Green Flame Blade works extremely well (solid cantrip damage, and you can pop Alchemical Savant onto one of the two targets).
I feel like people overly focus on the Experimental Elixir feature, but it's actually a fine feature at earlier levels, and scales at 9th-level (so within the 10th-level cutoff for many campaigns). The main problem is that people seem to trick themselves into thinking this is your only source of potions; an Alchemist should be making full use of alchemist's supplies at every available opportunity, the elixirs are a bonus on top of what you should already be churning out. Alchemist is also a prime candidate for the Poisoner feat to also brew up poisons for yourself and others, as well as bypass the fairly common poison resistance (to get more out of your poison spell options).
While I don't think the sub-class is perfect, I think it's fully playable and mostly fine as-is, you just need to be realistic about the types of characters you're going to use it to build. If I were to homebrew an upgraded version the things I'd change (on top of more acid/fire/necrotic/poison spell options) would be:
But most of that doesn't really change the sub-class until later, because I think it's generally fine otherwise. One other issue it has is that it shouldn't be called "Alchemist", given that literally anyone with alchemist's supplies in this game is an alchemist, it should be called "Chemist" or something to disambiguate it a bit.
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.
Neither option is that good. Being the 'healer' is done much better by 3 other classes (bard, cleric, druid); Support-healer by multiple sub-classes (divine souled sorcerer, any paladin, ranger).
Keeping the infusions to yourself and using all your own elixers still doesn't put you on the same level as an artillerist (temp hp, better damage), battle smith or armorer (both 2 attacks and can focus on either melee or ranged focused).
Being a support healer is just the best of multiple bad options.
Lesser restoration at 5th level instead of 3rd, greater Restoration at 15th instead of 9th and heal at 15th instead of 11th. If you only compare through tier 2 then, every one listed above is a better option. Going tier 3 or four all the other classes are still better.
Agree on the lacking spell list, but realistically, that +int for one target isn't worth building around unless you want to play a warlock and even then most of those also use hex.
The reason people focus on it is because it is the defining feature of the sub-class. Alchemist pass out potions/elixirs - but they're all basically first level spells, don't scale and cost an action to use.
That bar is way too low. It is playable, but then so is the blood hunter and the way of four elements monk.
Reminder: power is always contextual, and what option is the strongest overall is always subjective. The strongest melee build is only good as long as it is within reach of something to kill, the strongest archery build only good as long as it has arrows, the strongest spellcaster only good as long as they have resources remaining, spell components available and they aren't in an antimagic field, a feature letting you instantly kill one creature you can see with no save as an action is still useless fighting against 20 kobolds, an unkillable monstrosity who has conquered death and age will only be useful as long as it can contribute to the fight and still gets targeted by attacks, an brutal pvp monster could **** up an important social encounter, and a skill monkey could get their ass kicked in combat etc etc etc.
With that said there are several situations where playing an alchemist is clearly better than playing those other classes you gave as examples, for instance:
- fighting a group of melee only enemies, you could hover up with a flight potion and let your high ac tank take the doge action while you dispatch the enemy with ranged attacks from above, effectively solving the combat encounter with minial damage taken and resources lost
- an ally just dropped to 0 hit points near you, and your job is to cast healing word on them to give them at least 1 hp and take them back to the fight. An alchemist with 18 int could heal them for 1d4+8 hp, then use their remaining action to cast fire bolt for 2d10+4 fire damage, more than what another caster might accomplish with their own healing word + cantrip combo
- have a monk in the party? Giving them the effects of Alter Self is essentially equivalent to giving them a magic weapon, but without eating your concentration like the 2nd level magic weapon spell might
- alter self potions are also the only way to breathe underwater via spellcasting prior to 5th level (or at least to do so and provide it to fellow party members) and most healing classes have no means of doing so period
- arguably, some of these potion effects are better than 1st level spells, the fact that using them is not your action but somebody else's is certainly an advantage in terms of action economy (especially if you choose an humonculus servant infusion), and the fact that they aren't spells means that they also cannot be dispelled.
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
Of course a full-caster is better at healing than a half-caster; they get more spell slots sooner and with higher level healing spells. This isn't an argument.
Sorcerer again is a full caster so not really comparable; they don't get infusions, more magic items and all over the core kit of the Artificer, and that's because they get more spellcasting as standard. This is not news.
Meanwhile Paladin and Ranger aren't your competition, as a party with a half-caster in a healing/support role ideally needs two, since you're replacing a single dedicated full casting healer/support character.
However, compared to them the Alchemist has a number of advantages; first and foremost, it gets healing word, which is arguably the best in combat healing spell in the game, as it can be cast without losing your entire turn to bring an ally back up. Plus as an Alchemist from 6th-level you'll be adding your INT to the hit-points recovered, so it basically becomes a ranged, bonus action cure wounds (better actually, at 1st or 2nd level).
While Paladin has an edge on the out of combat healing thanks to its Lay on Hands pool, in combat it doesn't really want to be healing at all, because it's a waste of their damage output, which is also what they want to be spending most of their spell slots on.
That depends a great deal on what you do with them; an Alchemist can layer multiple elixirs at once for +1 AC, flight, +d4 to attack rolls and saves etc. If they do want to do healing they can use a Homunculus Servant to administer healing elixirs.
Do you just not understand what half casters are? I'm confused by this repeated line of argument. Obviously cleric (the ultimate class for building a healer) can make a better healer on its own, but the same is true of Cleric vs. Paladin, since Paladin is effectively a Fighter/Cleric multiclass minus the juggling.
It's not a single target, it's a single damage or healing roll; so it applies to every creature affected by an area effect. The main problem is that too many of the spells available don't deal immediate damage (so don't strictly apply), it would help if it was errata'd to work more like Elemental Affinity (any time you deal damage of a type or heal) as it would apply to so many more effects directly without the DM having to do Wizards of the Coast's work for them.
The thing is they're not just as good as 1st level spells; people think about the feature in the wrong terms.
What people don't appreciate about Alchemist, same as with Monk, is that versatility has value. While Artillerist, Armorer and Battle Smith all do one thing very well, that's pretty much all they do; Armorer is the exception in that Infiltrator armour can be used for stealth and such, but it's not a huge range.
The way to think about Alchemist's features are in terms of having more spells and spell slots than any other Artificer; Experimental Elixir effectively gives you six more spells known than any other sub-class, plus one additional 1st-level spell slot (and more later). Restorative Agents gives you an additional 2nd level spell known, and essentially up to four or five 2nd level spell slots to cast it with. Chemical Mastery gives you an additional 5th-level spell known, and a 6th-level spell, and a free spell slot to cast each of them with.
You can heal but you're not a dedicated healer, because you never actually need to spend a single one of your spell choices on a healing spell, you get all that you need for free; that lets you focus on damage, support and/or utility. Versatility is key.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The issue with the Alchemist being a half caster is that experimental elixir almost seems designed to be used by a full caster class. Additional elixirs can be chosen only if you expend a spell slot. More traditional half casters (Rangers, Paladins, Battle Smiths, Armorers) have weapons and Extra Attack to fall back on. Battle Smith's and Armorer's core subclass features do not rely on expending spell slots.
Having 1 additional spell slot is nice in theory... if it was a spell slot you had control over. RAW, You don't, that bottled spell comes precast. Sometimes it's useful. Sometimes it's not. It depends entirely on the day, the needs of the situation, the roll of the d6 die, whether or not the player you gave the elixir to even remembers that they have it, whether or not that player chooses to use an action to drink that elixir instead of using their own class feature, or whether or not your DM allows you to administer the elixir to other conscious creatures. (RAW you can only administer an Experimental Elixir to an unconscious creature. It's stupid, but that's what the RAW are.)
Effectively this extra spell slot is something like N/6 of a spell slot where N is the vague undefined number of elixirs that would be handy to have in a given adventuring day. I'll grant you that N is almost always more than 1 but N is rarely ever 6. So effectively we're looking at perhaps 1/3 to 2/3 of an extra spell slot. Better than no extra spell slot? Absolutely. But when your subclass relies on expending spell slots to produce elixirs that maybe won't even get drunk maybe you might understand why some of us are looking at the Alchemist's half-caster glass as half empty instead of half full.
Given that Battle Smith's and Armorer's subclass features are less reliant on spell slots in the first place you'd expect them to have more spell slots available for spell casting which they seem less likely to need. As half casters, they look half full.
At 9th level the alchemist's two free elixirs will always at least offer temporary HP, but until then if you want an elixir guaranteed to be useful in the scenario you're in you'll likely need to expend a spell slot. 9th level suddenly makes them a whole lot better to use but that's also a long time to wait assuming you started the campaign at lower levels.
The Alchemist is definitely a more versatile subclass, but Experimental Elixir (assuming you use it) can also make it somewhat anemic and that's on top of being a not-half-martial half-caster already.
And finally, because I've ended up in nowhere arguments about this stuff in the past, I do not hate the alchemist. I'm just trying to look at how it is RAW as objectively as I can with the least amount of assumptions about what will go down in a campaign while still being aware of the possibilities. The alchemist is still my favorite artificer subclass if only because it has the most added use for my favorite artificer infusion, the Homunculus Servant. So note, while I am definitely complaining, I do it out of love and frustration not hate.
The N value is at worst 3, as if we assume you'll have at least one combat encounter then the only situational options are Swiftness, Flight and Transformation, and even then the first two of these are still usable (give Flight to a ranged character or use it yourself to get to a vantage point, or give Swiftness to a melee character who needs to close quickly), so it's really 5/6 and only if you envision finding no way to make use of alter self over the course of an adventuring day, which is really up to you (why sneak past a guard when you can just be someone who's allowed to be there etc.).
So it's basically always at least nearly 6, and from 6th level you're getting two free elixirs, so even if we assume it's not quite a free spell slot at 3rd, it's almost always at least one from 6th unless you're very unlucky. Even then it's still up to you what you do with it; so you got two Transformation elixirs, guess you'll be sneaking in someplace as a couple, or now two can go underwater, or you've got one to get in, and one to get out again etc.
IMO the only real mechanical problem with Experimental Elixirs is that RAW you can only administer them to someone else if they're incapacitated, which is a little annoying, as otherwise you could administer them yourself as needed, rather than handing them out, or even better using a Homunculus Servant (which I expect most Alchemists are going to have), especially since it's just too characterful to have such a weird condition to prevent it. The only other low level change is either add more same turn acid/fire/necrotic/poison area spells to the artificer list to benefit from Alchemical Savant, or tweak Alchemical Savant to work on later turns (e.g- once per turn when a spell you cast rolls for healing or acid, fire, necrotic or poison damage, you can add your INT modifier to the roll) so it's not limited to only a few spells; this isn't a major problem as the few spells are decent (it even works with green-flame blade if you want to be a bit more "hands on" in your support), but it'd be nice to have more choice.
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.
My point is if you're going to play a support caster, there are better choices where the alchemist doesn't measure up at all. Then if you want to compare only half casters the ranger and paladin are competition (I was grouping divine sorcerer to half since I"m assuming they would be secondary support). They're half casters and still have a full complement of other class abilities. Healing word is great, but not having it doesn't negate either classes as support healers.
And using the elixir, your spells sots and your infusions and you still aren't as effective as either of the other sub-classes.
You're argument is that alchemist make healers. You keep comparing that they're more spell caster focused but when comparing them to an actual spellcaster they fall short. When comparing them to a half spell caster they fall short.
It would help if the rules were clearer on it, empowered evocation and other similar abilities. There are what 2 cantrips and 5 spells total that benefit from it on the artificier/alchemist spell list. The ability itself is very underwhelming. Everyone points out how great it is with healing word because that's really the only use that even starts to stand out. Cast acid splash + int, poison spray + int doesn't make up for a second attack (battle smith, armorer) or an extra 2d8 attack or temp hp or a small AoE. Adding it to a spell doesn't make it any better.
The artillerist offers group temp hp or a second attack or a small AoE for free for an hour. Then spend a spell slot and do it another hour.
The battle smith and armorer can do both melee and ranged, have a second attack, the same number of spell slots, etc.
How are people supposed to think about alchemists? Per the rules they're all wild haired mad idiots. The other artificers are consistent (armor, steel defender, cannon) and that is what defines their subclass. The alchemist's defining characteristic is unreliability?
An unreliable and useless elixir doesn't equal a spell slot. Again you're going to be spending a spell slot 82% of the time, if you want a specific effect. Having an elixir that could be used is not the same as actually having another character use them. 9 levels of alchemist and my elixirs were used effectively twice. Because people don't want to spend their action taking an elixir for a minor benefit instead of using their class abilities. Sure if you're got setup time, but even then you only get 1 or 2 elixirs and the majority of the time they're not going to be what you want or need.
If the elixirs
1) Not random (I think that's the dumbest thing for what is supposed to be a steampunk chemist - why random on a long rest when the character would have hours to prepare yet can be made/finished on demand in 6 seconds with a spell slot)
2) Didn't cost the other character an action to use (maybe cost the alchemist a bonus action to administer - have they never heard of injections, or topical applications)
3) The elixirs scale similar to the other sub-class abilities (more healing, longer duration, faster speed/flight, more ac)
That's what I keep coming around to. You're not a dedicated healer the alchemist doesn't measure up at all. However, even as a secondary healer the alchemist doesn't measure up (paladin, ranger). Comparing them to the other artificier subclasses - they still aren't as effective.
It's a half-caster, not a full-caster; by that same logic it's possibly to build a better damage-dealer than the Artillerist using Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard. You don't play a half-caster because you want to be better than a full-caster at what they're good at, you play a half-caster so you can mix and match.
Alchemist gets a more than competitive amount of healing as a half-caster, and that's on top of the toolkit of Artificer and the freedom to focus more on support and/or utility as you please. You don't need to be a dedicated healer to use some healing, and as I have said what now feels like a billion times, you get all that you need for free. Not a single one of your spell choices needs to be spent on healing. Not one.
I really don't want to have to write an essay explaining half-casters to you on top of everything else.
It's not free; it costs your bonus action every turn you want to move and/or use it, the Protector and Flamethrower variants are both extremely short-ranged and slow making positioning a lot more difficult unless you carry it (in which case it occupies your hand). The Protector requires your party to bunch up for an average 8-9 temporary hit-points which limits how useful it really is in practice (and it doesn't scale, which is actually unlike elixirs).
The Force Ballista is actually the best of the three unless your DM is super lenient; it's a decent extra attack, but that's all it is until it provides cover (but even then, where you place it or yourself remains an issue).
Ultimately it only lets the Artillerist do one thing (combat) well; the turrets have no real out of combat utility. To be clear, I'm not dissing the Artillerist, it's a fine sub-class, but it only really does one thing as a sub-class.
They are literally neither unreliable or useless.
Alchemist gets six 1st-level effects they can use on demand, without concentration on any of them; in other words they know six more spells than any other Artificer sub-class or half-caster (and more than some full-casters). You get one of these for free albeit randomised, but there's only one properly situational effect, Transformation, and even that should be usable during most adventuring days. You get a second free elixir from 6th-level, you get an additional 2nd-level spell at 9th (plus up to 5 free spell slots to use it), then a 5th and a 6th-level (which no other half caster gets) at 15th-level plus another two slots to use those.
The Alchemist effectively maxes out at 24 spells known and the equivalent of 25 spell slots (15 basic + 3 elixirs + 5 lesser restoration + greater restoration + heal); they're not up to the same spell slot level as a full caster, but way more than any other half caster, they're basically the game's only two-thirds caster. On a character that still has full access to infusions, magic item attunement, tool expertise etc. etc. They're a part Artificer, part Cleric, part Wizard multiclass and it works just fine with that in mind.
Of course the alchemist looks weak if you start by utterly refusing to see any of what it does. But I have no further interest in repeating these points again and again; if you're not going to listen to them anyway, then why bother?
To be fair, I should know better than to participate in these kind of threads, it's always pointless, and the word "objectively" in the title was a trap from the start as nobody wants to actually discuss these things objectively; they just want to repeat their biases and for other people to agree with them.
In any event I'm unsubscribing.
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 want to note that this is coming from a player who has played a Battle smith from levels 1-8 in an existing campaign:
Any time you have to argue hard to explain why a class or subclass is good, then it's bad. 'But I can use thus and so to disguise the party.' That's...nice I guess? Seriously...if you really need to disguise your whole party that often, then you do you but my group seldom has that need.
Having a class or subclass that is better in some circumstances and not as good in others is not only fine, it's to be expected. If this were not the case, there would be no reason for classes and subs. However, when you have to build corner-case circumstances where your favorite class or subclass is on-par with others (not good, not great, just on-par), then that class or subclass is not good.
Think about it...one of the reasons that Rangers were so badly treated before Tasha's was that many of their innate abilities only worked in their preferred terrain. The Beast-Master subclass was a flat joke. You never hear anyone saying 'Fighters suck' because even if some of their subs aren't stellar, the core class is good. These debates have gone back and forth since about ten minutes after D&DB came online.
I've never played an Artillerist but I can do math and theirs is pretty solid. There is a versatility there that the other two don't have ('we have a party full of shooters today so I'll do support!).
I'm not sure where the Battle Smith contributors are getting their numbers for damage output though. Mine uses a Light Crossbow infused with Repeating Shot. At level 3 (when I picked my sub) I became able to use my Int bonus (+3) instead of my Dex bonus of +2 for the weapon which the infusion had already granted a +1. So I'm doing a D8+4 which is perfectly in line with other classes. By level 5 I get a second attack (and with my ASI I also had a +4 Int Bonus) so that's 2 attacks at +8 to hit and 1D8+5 damage in addition to using my Bonus Action to order my Steel Defender to attack for another 1D8+3 damage with +5 to hit. Yes, this means that Harley's Deflect Attack ability won't work on me but I usually put him next to the Barbarian to make one enemy attack less likely to hit. Our party is also working with a batch of +1 bolts that I made so I'm technically at +9/+6 but not everyone will have magic ammo.
So, at level 8 (with my second ASI), I'm shooting at +9 or better to hit, with 2 attacks at 1D8+6 damage, as well as my SD who has 1D8+3 damage at +5 to hit. These numbers are fine when stacked up against the typical damage-dealing class like the Fighter, the Ranger, or the Barbarian. Sure, a Wizard CAN still cast Fireball but that spell is an outlier by design and the Devs have said as much. All of this is in addition to the fact that I have a Homunculus flitting around the battlefield that enables me to cast Cure Wounds (to top people off) or a Touch Cantrip like Shocking Grasp for added damage.
When the Artificer class first became a thing, I took one look at the Alchemist subclass and thought 'well...THAT sucks' and my opinion has not changed. Sure, in some campaigns, in some circumstances, the Alchemist will be great. However, the fact that I have to qualify that statement tells me that the subclass, RAW, is simply not good when compared to others that can do the job as well or better.