That just sounds like first impression bias. To me paladin looks week at first glance but it is usually part of any nova build.
Being unwilling to discuss and analyze is almost as big of a flaw as "rose colored" obsession.
Dismissing anecdotes is also problematic. They just need to be understood.Anecdotes show possibilities not probabilities or causality. Meaning you have to go through the basic questions. Who and what are answered. When, how and why are not. Analysis is needed. So far analysis shows first impressions are worse than functional play.
I have seen table's of low key optimizers get upset that a phb beastmaster was out damaging the rest of the party. I have seen options for "any" pet function in combat. Seriously a cat becomes a force to be reconed with when tied to a beastmaster.
As for fighers I hear complaints all the time about its subclasses. "Champion is too situational" "archane archer doesn't have enough uses"
This just sounds like you are down playing some aspects because you "already know it's bad" because your first two samples show your first impression carries alot of weight (more than it should IMO)
The fact that alchemist takes alot of resource weight off a healer's pool has value. Mix in another partial healer's and you may not even need a primary one.
The +Int to spells also has unique value in that its an absolute value over a die roll. Lower minimums are great that's what carries most weapon users but an alchemist can do it with spells(of the right elements).
Now there is probably a hierarchy of artiificers And alchemist is lower on the scale but not significantly so.
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).
This isn't accurate. It's not like knowing 6 more spells, spells can be cast as an action on a target. These need an action to make the elixir and then administered, and RAW requires a full action to drink. This is significantly worse than just casting a spell. You either have to use an extra action to get the effect or use it ahead of time (when some have a very short duration) and/or need to make them ahead of time meaning you might choose to make the wrong ones for your situation.
It's not that the elixirs are bad, its just that they don't make up for the rest of this subclasses kit. Not by a long shot. They can be fine up levels 1-4 especially if you take homunculus for the BA attack, but after level 5 they get left in the dust. -It's a half caster that doesn't get a 2nd attack -This means limited spell slots, and having to rely on a cantrip +int -While you get more uses for you spell slots you don't get more of them so for every elixir you make you are giving up a cure wounds, shield, absorb -elements, faerie fire, etc which are just as, if not more impactful as the elxiers.
The +Int to spells also has unique value in that its an absolute value over a die roll. Lower minimums are great that's what carries most weapon users but an alchemist can do it with spells(of the right elements).
The problem here is that WOTC chose to design the ability around absolutely massive instantaneous AOE healing and damage and then they didn't give Alchemists Prayer of Healing, Mass Cure Wounds, or instantaneous damage spells of the appropriate type, such as Arms of Hadar, Burning Hands, or Fireball; in fact, their design specifically encourages multiclassing, which is bad design in the same way Rogue Assassins are. It's also downright insulting that they specifically designed it for anti-synergy with Green-flame Blade by stopping the Alchemist from casting the spell while wielding a shield and using Alchemical Savant.
It's absolutely astounding they didn't either give the Alchemist AOE spells to work with its ability or worded the ability to work with its spells. It's not the worst such ability in the game - Spirits Bards have this same issue going on only worse - but it's pretty bad. I'll go so far as to assert that across the entire game, a well-designed subclass spell list should be tailored to that subclass's abilities and vice-versa.
That just sounds like first impression bias. To me paladin looks week at first glance but it is usually part of any nova build.
People have been arguing about the weakness of the Alchemist since the class was first released. The paladin has no such longstanding complaints.
Sort of like the Beastmaster Ranger. Of all the Ranger subs, it's the one that was almost universally derided. The Paladin normally ranks near the top when compared with other classes.
AT 5th level: Having a 7 damage floor (on each target) Acid splash means your cantrip can regularly cause more damage than than most 1st or second level spells. That alone makes it worth something. Frankly with any cantrip doing just 1 or 2 damage hurts so bad. Normally i don't count magic items as well but considering its a crafting class Add an All-purpose tool and you are doing quite well for your self.
(Honestly, I thought you were the one that taught me to look at damage floors but it may have been someone else. )
On that same note there is some funny wording where magic stone or Catapult Could get extra Poison damage if coated in contact Poison if your dm considers it part of the spell attack. If they allow thrown vials that also could get the bonus damage. (i think magic stone is slightly more likely to be approved than catapult but that's just because I've only met a couple of dms that go for the flying vials of bonus damage. )
Alchemical Savant specifies that the spell must deal acid, poison, fire, or necrotic damage. Using Catapult to fling an acid flask at someone isn't causing Catapult to deal acid damage, the spell's still dealing bludgeoning damage- the acid is coming from a non-spell source. I mean, come on, if you cast Thorn Whip on someone to drag them into a Wall of Fire, would you claim that Thorn Whip was dealing fire damage to them?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As the moderation team has stated dm fiat is applicable to all posts.
I specifically said it was an unlikely ruling for catapult but the dm has the right to make it so. Some dms allow the acid to replace damage or add to the spell as a secondary effect. See catapult thread rulings.
There is a funny space where the spell can have a roll as part of it that was not an element of the original spell. Gfb or booming blade with a poison weapon counts. Magic stone may count. Some homebrew rulings count. Some multi-class options also would count.
"GM fiat" is not a valid argument in a discussion about how a class's power works. What's written in the book is consistent, what some random GM decides to do as a house rule is not. It's great if someone wants to play with a given house rule but saying that the class is good with X, Y, and Z house rules is really saying that as written, the class smells like a troglodyte's loincloth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Please note: "The DM gets the final say" is NOT irrelevant nor off-topic and only serves to confuse users by stating such. This facet is written into the sourcebooks and will be upheld as an on-topic point in any/all discussion, as it holds true in every scenario. Any direction to other users to limit, avoid, or contradict such is null.
See below example(s):
[And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.]
[The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.]
I normally agree dm fiat is a bad argument especially when you want absolutes but the mod the team believes otherwise. {I also don't think focusing on my nitpick detail instead of the established principle is a good way to host a healthy discussion } However, there are points that make this applicable. Common hombrew rules affect power level of features. I have seen common rules changes to fog cloud, counterspell, action economy and they all affect certain classes "power."
Any rules change can affect the power of the class i was showing the unique potential of the spell. the spell does not need to deal poison to get the boon.it only needs to be part of an attack of the spell there is a fine line where that applies. Greenflame blade and booming blade count if the poison is part of the attack. That means there are lots of little ways to manipulate the boon to work on more things. LVL 8 Trickery cleric. the magic item poison dagger.
If you summon a tiny servant (or summon construct )and that servant attacks and does appropriate damage or healing you will get exactly 1 roll to have the bonus.
That just sounds like first impression bias. To me paladin looks week at first glance but it is usually part of any nova build.
Being unwilling to discuss and analyze is almost as big of a flaw as "rose colored" obsession.
Dismissing anecdotes is also problematic. They just need to be understood.Anecdotes show possibilities not probabilities or causality. Meaning you have to go through the basic questions. Who and what are answered. When, how and why are not. Analysis is needed. So far analysis shows first impressions are worse than functional play.
I've played an alchemist from 1 - 9th and every complaint I raised is valid. I've also DMed (both organized play and homebrew for other artificiersubclasses). It isn't first impression bias.
Compare it to a W4E- Monk. The alchemist gets elixirs (number based on tier). Then in order to actually use their defining sub-class feature, they have to spend their core class ability. I know the artillerist does as well, but they get an hour free, then spend a level 1 spell slots for another hour.
AT 5th level: Having a 7 damage floor (on each target) Acid splash means your cantrip can regularly cause more damage than than most 1st or second level spells. That alone makes it worth something. Frankly with any cantrip doing just 1 or 2 damage hurts so bad. Normally i don't count magic items as well but considering its a crafting class Add an All-purpose tool and you are doing quite well for your self.
(Honestly, I thought you were the one that taught me to look at damage floors but it may have been someone else. )
On that same note there is some funny wording where magic stone or Catapult Could get extra Poison damage if coated in contact Poison if your dm considers it part of the spell attack. If they allow thrown vials that also could get the bonus damage. (i think magic stone is slightly more likely to be approved than catapult but that's just because I've only met a couple of dms that go for the flying vials of bonus damage. )
How are you getting a 7 damage floor at 5th level? Unless you're assuming rolled stats and a 20 INT at that level?
An All-purpose tool doesn't add damage, just to hit and DCs (which I'll admit is nice). But, if you use an all-purpose tools, you aren't using your alchemist supplies so no +INT damage.
No funny wording, adding poison to a stone, or catapulting an acid vial isnt' spell damage.
Please note: "The DM gets the final say" is NOT irrelevant nor off-topic and only serves to confuse users by stating such. This facet is written into the sourcebooks and will be upheld as an on-topic point in any/all discussion, as it holds true in every scenario. Any direction to other users to limit, avoid, or contradict such is null.
See below example(s):
[And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.]
[The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.]
More than 3/4 of my 5e D&D playing is via organized play (adventure league) and that does not hold true.
I normally agree dm fiat is a bad argument especially when you want absolutes but the mod the team believes otherwise. {I also don't think focusing on my nitpick detail instead of the established principle is a good way to host a healthy discussion } However, there are points that make this applicable. Common hombrew rules affect power level of features. I have seen common rules changes to fog cloud, counterspell, action economy and they all affect certain classes "power."
Any rules change can affect the power of the class i was showing the unique potential of the spell. the spell does not need to deal poison to get the boon.it only needs to be part of an attack of the spell there is a fine line where that applies. Greenflame blade and booming blade count if the poison is part of the attack. That means there are lots of little ways to manipulate the boon to work on more things. LVL 8 Trickery cleric. the magic item poison dagger.
Per RAW, neither Greenflame Blade nor Booming Blade qualify to add the +int from the Alchemist Savant feature. Alchemist Supplies are not weapons and you have to use the alchemist’s supplies as the spellcasting focus while both attack cantrips require a weapon.
If you summon a tiny servant (or summon construct )and that servant attacks and does appropriate damage or healing you will get exactly 1 roll to have the bonus.
But, if you use an all-purpose tools, you aren't using your alchemist supplies so no +INT damage.
An All-Purpose Tool can take the form of any tool, including Alchemist Supplies. (In fact, Alchemist is the only subclass that can take full advantage of an All-Purpose Tool without giving up any subclass feature, while still wielding a Shield).
But, if you use an all-purpose tools, you aren't using your alchemist supplies so no +INT damage.
An All-Purpose Tool can take the form of any tool, including Alchemist Supplies. (In fact, Alchemist is the only subclass that can take full advantage of an All-Purpose Tool without giving up any subclass feature (and still wielding a Shield).
thank you kencleary. Also, the all purpose tool allows you to learn any cantrip. you do not need to cast the cantrip through it (even if you have a dm that says its not an alchemist supplies)
Per RAW, neither Greenflame Blade nor Booming Blade qualify to add the +int from the Alchemist Savant feature. Alchemist Supplies are not weapons and you have to use the alchemist’s supplies as the spellcasting focus while both attack cantrips require a weapon.
actually you just have to have the costly material component you do not need to cast through/via the costly component. all artificer spells require the tool or an infusion as a focus. However, you will need a free hand one for the weapon and one for the tool. Hence quindranaco's shield complaint earlier.
You were right I was not fair with a 7 floor. I should have said 6 floor. Still a decent floor though. My current artificer is level 5 but I got an 18 through rolling. so, I accidentally used +5 instead of +4
But, if you use an all-purpose tools, you aren't using your alchemist supplies so no +INT damage.
An All-Purpose Tool can take the form of any tool, including Alchemist Supplies. (In fact, Alchemist is the only subclass that can take full advantage of an All-Purpose Tool without giving up any subclass feature, while still wielding a Shield).
I took supplies to be supplies, but they put it on the equipment list, so ok.
Per RAW, neither Greenflame Blade nor Booming Blade qualify to add the +int from the Alchemist Savant feature. Alchemist Supplies are not weapons and you have to use the alchemist’s supplies as the spellcasting focus while both attack cantrips require a weapon.
actually you just have to have the costly material component you do not need to cast through/via the costly component. all artificer spells require the tool or an infusion as a focus. However, you will need a free hand one for the weapon and one for the tool. Hence quindranaco's shield complaint earlier.
You were right I was not fair with a 7 floor. I should have said 6 floor. Still a decent floor though. My current artificer is level 5 but I got an 18 through rolling. so, I accidentally used +5 instead of +4
You have to use the alchemist supplies as the focus.
From Alchemical Savant: " Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist’s supplies as thespellcasting focus, you gain a bonus to one roll of the spell."
From both spells: "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."
You have to use the alchemist supplies as the focus.
From Alchemical Savant: " Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist’s supplies as thespellcasting focus, you gain a bonus to one roll of the spell."
From both spells: "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."
Those statements aren't mutually exclusive.
You can brandish a weapon "used in the spell's casting" even when it's not being "used as a spellcasting focus."
If a spell can have multiple material components (many do) and those spells aren't impossible to cast either with a focus or without then clearly a spell can require both a weapon and a focus and be perfectly castable as such.
You just have a weapon in one hand, and your alchemist's supplies in the other.
That just sounds like first impression bias. To me paladin looks week at first glance but it is usually part of any nova build.
Being unwilling to discuss and analyze is almost as big of a flaw as "rose colored" obsession.
Dismissing anecdotes is also problematic. They just need to be understood.Anecdotes show possibilities not probabilities or causality. Meaning you have to go through the basic questions. Who and what are answered. When, how and why are not. Analysis is needed. So far analysis shows first impressions are worse than functional play.
You dismiss anecdotes then proceed to give some.
I have seen table's of low key optimizers get upset that a phb beastmaster was out damaging the rest of the party. I have seen options for "any" pet function in combat. Seriously a cat becomes a force to be reconed with when tied to a beastmaster.
As for fighers I hear complaints all the time about its subclasses. "Champion is too situational" "archane archer doesn't have enough uses"
This just sounds like you are down playing some aspects because you "already know it's bad" because your first two samples show your first impression carries alot of weight (more than it should IMO)
The fact that alchemist takes alot of resource weight off a healer's pool has value. Mix in another partial healer's and you may not even need a primary one.
The +Int to spells also has unique value in that its an absolute value over a die roll. Lower minimums are great that's what carries most weapon users but an alchemist can do it with spells(of the right elements).
Now there is probably a hierarchy of artiificers And alchemist is lower on the scale but not significantly so.
This isn't accurate.
It's not like knowing 6 more spells, spells can be cast as an action on a target. These need an action to make the elixir and then administered, and RAW requires a full action to drink. This is significantly worse than just casting a spell. You either have to use an extra action to get the effect or use it ahead of time (when some have a very short duration) and/or need to make them ahead of time meaning you might choose to make the wrong ones for your situation.
It's not that the elixirs are bad, its just that they don't make up for the rest of this subclasses kit. Not by a long shot. They can be fine up levels 1-4 especially if you take homunculus for the BA attack, but after level 5 they get left in the dust.
-It's a half caster that doesn't get a 2nd attack
-This means limited spell slots, and having to rely on a cantrip +int
-While you get more uses for you spell slots you don't get more of them so for every elixir you make you are giving up a cure wounds, shield, absorb -elements, faerie fire, etc which are just as, if not more impactful as the elxiers.
The problem here is that WOTC chose to design the ability around absolutely massive instantaneous AOE healing and damage and then they didn't give Alchemists Prayer of Healing, Mass Cure Wounds, or instantaneous damage spells of the appropriate type, such as Arms of Hadar, Burning Hands, or Fireball; in fact, their design specifically encourages multiclassing, which is bad design in the same way Rogue Assassins are. It's also downright insulting that they specifically designed it for anti-synergy with Green-flame Blade by stopping the Alchemist from casting the spell while wielding a shield and using Alchemical Savant.
It's absolutely astounding they didn't either give the Alchemist AOE spells to work with its ability or worded the ability to work with its spells. It's not the worst such ability in the game - Spirits Bards have this same issue going on only worse - but it's pretty bad. I'll go so far as to assert that across the entire game, a well-designed subclass spell list should be tailored to that subclass's abilities and vice-versa.
People have been arguing about the weakness of the Alchemist since the class was first released. The paladin has no such longstanding complaints.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sort of like the Beastmaster Ranger. Of all the Ranger subs, it's the one that was almost universally derided. The Paladin normally ranks near the top when compared with other classes.
AT 5th level: Having a 7 damage floor (on each target) Acid splash means your cantrip can regularly cause more damage than than most 1st or second level spells. That alone makes it worth something. Frankly with any cantrip doing just 1 or 2 damage hurts so bad. Normally i don't count magic items as well but considering its a crafting class Add an All-purpose tool and you are doing quite well for your self.
(Honestly, I thought you were the one that taught me to look at damage floors but it may have been someone else. )
On that same note there is some funny wording where magic stone or Catapult Could get extra Poison damage if coated in contact Poison if your dm considers it part of the spell attack. If they allow thrown vials that also could get the bonus damage. (i think magic stone is slightly more likely to be approved than catapult but that's just because I've only met a couple of dms that go for the flying vials of bonus damage. )
Alchemical Savant specifies that the spell must deal acid, poison, fire, or necrotic damage. Using Catapult to fling an acid flask at someone isn't causing Catapult to deal acid damage, the spell's still dealing bludgeoning damage- the acid is coming from a non-spell source. I mean, come on, if you cast Thorn Whip on someone to drag them into a Wall of Fire, would you claim that Thorn Whip was dealing fire damage to them?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As the moderation team has stated dm fiat is applicable to all posts.
I specifically said it was an unlikely ruling for catapult but the dm has the right to make it so. Some dms allow the acid to replace damage or add to the spell as a secondary effect. See catapult thread rulings.
There is a funny space where the spell can have a roll as part of it that was not an element of the original spell. Gfb or booming blade with a poison weapon counts. Magic stone may count. Some homebrew rulings count. Some multi-class options also would count.
"GM fiat" is not a valid argument in a discussion about how a class's power works. What's written in the book is consistent, what some random GM decides to do as a house rule is not. It's great if someone wants to play with a given house rule but saying that the class is good with X, Y, and Z house rules is really saying that as written, the class smells like a troglodyte's loincloth.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I normally agree dm fiat is a bad argument especially when you want absolutes but the mod the team believes otherwise. {I also don't think focusing on my nitpick detail instead of the established principle is a good way to host a healthy discussion } However, there are points that make this applicable. Common hombrew rules affect power level of features. I have seen common rules changes to fog cloud, counterspell, action economy and they all affect certain classes "power."
Any rules change can affect the power of the class i was showing the unique potential of the spell. the spell does not need to deal poison to get the boon.it only needs to be part of an attack of the spell there is a fine line where that applies. Greenflame blade and booming blade count if the poison is part of the attack. That means there are lots of little ways to manipulate the boon to work on more things. LVL 8 Trickery cleric. the magic item poison dagger.
If you summon a tiny servant (or summon construct )and that servant attacks and does appropriate damage or healing you will get exactly 1 roll to have the bonus.
I've played an alchemist from 1 - 9th and every complaint I raised is valid. I've also DMed (both organized play and homebrew for other artificiersubclasses). It isn't first impression bias.
Compare it to a W4E- Monk. The alchemist gets elixirs (number based on tier). Then in order to actually use their defining sub-class feature, they have to spend their core class ability. I know the artillerist does as well, but they get an hour free, then spend a level 1 spell slots for another hour.
How are you getting a 7 damage floor at 5th level? Unless you're assuming rolled stats and a 20 INT at that level?
An All-purpose tool doesn't add damage, just to hit and DCs (which I'll admit is nice). But, if you use an all-purpose tools, you aren't using your alchemist supplies so no +INT damage.
No funny wording, adding poison to a stone, or catapulting an acid vial isnt' spell damage.
More than 3/4 of my 5e D&D playing is via organized play (adventure league) and that does not hold true.
Per RAW, neither Greenflame Blade nor Booming Blade qualify to add the +int from the Alchemist Savant feature. Alchemist Supplies are not weapons and you have to use the alchemist’s supplies as the spellcasting focus while both attack cantrips require a weapon.
Not sure where you were going with that.
An All-Purpose Tool can take the form of any tool, including Alchemist Supplies. (In fact, Alchemist is the only subclass that can take full advantage of an All-Purpose Tool without giving up any subclass feature, while still wielding a Shield).
thank you kencleary. Also, the all purpose tool allows you to learn any cantrip. you do not need to cast the cantrip through it (even if you have a dm that says its not an alchemist supplies)
actually you just have to have the costly material component you do not need to cast through/via the costly component. all artificer spells require the tool or an infusion as a focus. However, you will need a free hand one for the weapon and one for the tool. Hence quindranaco's shield complaint earlier.
You were right I was not fair with a 7 floor. I should have said 6 floor. Still a decent floor though. My current artificer is level 5 but I got an 18 through rolling. so, I accidentally used +5 instead of +4
I took supplies to be supplies, but they put it on the equipment list, so ok.
You have to use the alchemist supplies as the focus.
From Alchemical Savant: " Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist’s supplies as the spellcasting focus, you gain a bonus to one roll of the spell."
From both spells: "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."
Those statements aren't mutually exclusive.
You can brandish a weapon "used in the spell's casting" even when it's not being "used as a spellcasting focus."
If a spell can have multiple material components (many do) and those spells aren't impossible to cast either with a focus or without then clearly a spell can require both a weapon and a focus and be perfectly castable as such.
You just have a weapon in one hand, and your alchemist's supplies in the other.