Alchemists supplies are both the chemicals and the tools used to manipulate those chemicals. A flask, a stir stick, a pinch of salt, or a drop of blood are all equally "alchemists supplies".
Using your alchemist tools with a green flame blade is easy. Have a belt pouch of alchemical powder (sulphur, salt, whatever). You hold your weapon in one hand, reach your other hand into the pouch and grab a pinch, sprinkle the powder over your weapon as you cast the spell. Then make your attack. You could even use a two-handed weapon which is briefly held in one hand while you sprinkle, then once your sprinkling hand is empty you put it on the hilt.
If you want to use a shield that's a bit more complicated, but you're an artificer, so you could gimmick it up a bit more. You have to have some alchemists supplies in hand. Turn your shield into an alchemists supplies container by rigging it up with a bunch of pouches and stuff. You could even have a special grove on the shield that you keep your "green flame blade powder" in, so as part of casting the spell you draw your weapon through the groove. Rule of Cool it up. Solving problems with silly contraptions is on brand for artificers. It certainly won't make your alchemist overpowered.
On the relative DPS of the subclasses, don't forget the Homunculus Servant. Armorers and Alchemists will often have no use for their bonus action, so a HS 1d4+PB force damage is a great little bonus. And it's Force damage, which hardly anything resists. A steel defender does 1d8+Pb which is better, but not miles better. When all 4 subclasses are using their bonus action the gap closes a bit.
Assume 5th level artificers who have 20 init.
Battlesmith who infused a +1 sword can attack twice per round then his defender attacks. If all attacks hit that is 1d8+5 slashing, 1d8+5 slashing, 1d8+2 force
If all attack hit that is an average of 25.5
Armorer with guardian armor who infused a Homunculus servant attacks twice per round then her servant attacks. If all attacks hit that is 1d8+5 thunder, 1d8+5 thunder, 1d4+2 force
If all attack hit that is an average of 23.5 (if she uses her second infusion for Enhanced Weapon that goes up to 25.5)
Alchemist who uses alchemists tools to cast Firebolt and has infused a HS will attack once then the HS attacks. If all attacks hit that is 2d10+5 fire, 1d4+2 force
If all attack hit that is an average of 20.5
Artillerist who uses her Arcane firearm to cast Firebolt and has a Force Ballista will attack once per round then the ballista attacks. If all attacks hit that is 2d10+1d8 fire, 2d8 force
If all attack hit that is an average of20 24.5
So if all attacks hit the spread is 20 to 25.5. Not a huge difference. Yeah, the battlesmith still does the most, but most of his damage is slashing damage, loads of things resist slashing damage. The Armorer does 2 points less, but it's mostly thunder damage and hardly anything resists thunder damage. They are basically equal. By using the servant infusion the Alchemist edges from 4th to 3rd place. The Artillerist does the least damage, but she is also the only one of the 4 who doesn't need to burn an infusion for basic everyday battle damage. All of those are also attack rolls, if facing a high AC opponent an artillerist or alchemist could switch to acid splash or create bonfire to get an attack with a Dex save instead while still keeping their subclass bonus damage.
Things will change up a little at 9th and 11th level. At 9th level the Battle smith gets an extra 2d6 force damage 5 times per day and the artillerists cannon damage increases by 1d8 every round, which one is better will depend on how many rounds of combat you face per day - if you're doing a dungeon crawl with a bunch of fights per day the artillerist is way better. The other 2 get utility instead of raw damage, with the armorer getting 2 bonus infusions and the alchemist stacking temp HP on all their elixirs.
At 11th level attack cantrips become more powerful, so this is a big boost to artillerists and alchemists that rely on cantrip spam as their go to attack. Firebolt goes from 2d10+stuff to 3d10+stuff.
Wait, I forgot something. At 10th level Enhanced Weapon changes from a +1 to a +2. The battlesmith should have a +2 sword by level 11. Having 6 infusion slots the armorer has probably enhanced his gauntlets to be +2 as well.
So at 11lth level the average if all attacks hit is
Battlesmith = 34.5 for up to 5 attacks, 27.5 for the rest (still with the oft resisted slashing damage)
Armorer = 27.5
Alchemist = 26
Artillerist = 30
So while the Artillerist is the weakest of the bunch at level 5, he is arguably the strongest at level 11.
While the alchemist comes out near the bottom at all levels I wouldn't discount them. Their round by round damage is only 4-6 points less than the top guy at any level, and their role as a second rate healbot is gonna be real handy whenever the cleric goes down. When you need it having Healing Word in your back pocket is clutch.
The only two ways I've seen alchemist to be leveraged well enough to ender the lower part of mid tier optimization is either multiclass with wizard or warlock.
The wizard one is straight forward. nab the artificer initiate feat(so you can use wizard spells and still get the bonus damage) and use save spells like acid splash dealing half damage on misses. Won't wow anyone but it's solid.
That telling at how badly designed the alchemist sub-class is. In order to be effective as anything but middling support and a mostly bad heal-bot, you have to multiclass.
The problem with optimization is it reduces choice. By its very nature, anything not deemed "optimal" must be removed from consideration. This makes the game less diverse and, summarily, less interesting.
Trying to play a "heal-bot" in 5e is a fool's errand. Damage mitigation, the prevention of hit point loss, has always been more efficient. So has just killing the darn thing. You see people asking about how to make a "tank" every so often, but that isn't really a thing in 5e. Very few classes and subclasses have tools to force, or otherwise incentivize, enemies to deal with a specific character. And the dynamic nature of combat means planed tactics can easy fall apart.
The alchemist isn't badly designed because it doesn't "optimize" well. Optimization isn't a priority for game designers.
Also all the Artificers can use their own infusions to boost their damage unlike the Alchemist so that shouldn't be ignored either when talking about damage numbers.
Also also the Artillerist and Battle Smith have HUGE nova potential the other two are missing.
Now talking about the things that aren't directly damage you mentioned.
The Battle Smith may have mostly slashing damage (if their weapon deals slashing damage), however thanks to their infusion it'll be magical slashing damage. Nothing resists magical slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage. Also the other half of their damage output is force damage the least resisted damage type apart from the already mentioned magical weapon damage. Meanwhile the Alchemist and Artillerist rely a lot on fire damage which is extremely commonly resisted.
You also mentioned how the Alchemist may fall behind at level 11+ but helps out with tempHP ... well so can the Artillerist if it's really needed and they do that much more efficiently I'm afraid.
Yeah I got the equation wrong there, I was only crediting the force ballista with 1d8. Thanks for pointing that out.
If the artillerist is using his cannon for temp HP he isn't using it for damage. The experimental elixirs can be made outside of combat, so they don't impact the action economy DPS. You can do shenanigans and pop out the cannon in the morning to give everyone max temp HP (13?) and then use spell slots the rest of the day.
The title of the thread is about the Battle Smith being objectively much stronger, and I don't think it is. The artillerist very strong and potentially the strongest, depending on the game. The alchemist is the weakest, but really not as bad as I thought before doing some math.
The only two ways I've seen alchemist to be leveraged well enough to ender the lower part of mid tier optimization is either multiclass with wizard or warlock.
The wizard one is straight forward. nab the artificer initiate feat(so you can use wizard spells and still get the bonus damage) and use save spells like acid splash dealing half damage on misses. Won't wow anyone but it's solid.
That telling at how badly designed the alchemist sub-class is. In order to be effective as anything but middling support and a mostly bad heal-bot, you have to multiclass.
The problem with optimization is it reduces choice. By its very nature, anything not deemed "optimal" must be removed from consideration. This makes the game less diverse and, summarily, less interesting.
I would argue that depends very much on how optimization is used. For instance, I generally will look to optimization to enable certain character concepts that would be quite un-fun to play otherwise (e.g. a character that makes heavy use of the net). Most of the optimization discussion I've seen is centered around the question "How can I make this concept work within an experienced group?" rather than "How do I make the best X?" In that way, it's enabling options for players, not removing them. When people complain about something that can't be optimized, it's usually because someone has a concept that can't be made to work well enough to feel useful in an experienced group.
Both Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford have gone on the record of Saying that type of "resistance" is not a factor for weather or not a spell or feature is above or below average dmg. the dmg only states Stacking resistances is what increases the CR not specific ones.
Now fire is resisted a lot but it also is one of the biggest "Beneficial shutdowns" of the game {regen removal, angry loss of targeting options, activates fear}.
as long as the alchemist has multiple options for damage types, resistance shouldn't be a problem.
The alchemist also has some freedom that the other classes don't
"mending tax" has basically been switched to "acid splash" tax
infusions "tax" not tied to weapons. {this means more of the fun ones like: spell tattoo's, Pot of awakening, Alchemist pot, The homunculus, +armor }
bonus action "Tax" freedom.
there are some distinct benefits of playing the alchemist. Do I think the design has some unnecessary limits? sure but there are times when it preforms better and those should not be taken for granted.
Its hardly a tax freedom when you have nothing to do with your bonus action. RAW you have no class option for this except for healing word (and from a quick look at other spell options namely expeditions retreat, ashardalon's stride, kinetic jaunt RUN AWAY!). And you have less spell slots to use this due to Elixirs. If Healing word is the way your going, the battlesmith has Aura of vitality at L9. A sustained "healing word" spell that uses just one L3 spell slot. If your argument is take a homunculus... every other artificer can do that too though the battlesmith and artillerist dont need to as the pet its part of their base class set AND they both get extra attacks too. The Armourer doesnt get a free pet, but gets 2 free infusions to cover the cost.
Also technicly eveyone's number calculations keep using firebolt. Fire is the most heavily resisted and immune damage type (Excluding poison) on the alchemist bonus damage list. If your calculations for damage use Acid splash which is more commonly used in my experience with a year of alchemist campaign gone so far, which is a 1D6 not a 1D10.
Alchemist who uses alchemists tools to cast Firebolt and has infused a HS will attack once then the HS attacks. If all attacks hit that is 2d10+5 fire, 1d4+2 force
If all attack hit that is an average of 20.5
<Etc.etc...>
so... 2D6+5 Acid, 1D4+2 force if all attacks hit, and they dont pass dex save 16.5
making 5th lvl more like:
Battlesmith = 25.5 for up to 5 attacks, 27.5 for the rest
Armorer = 25.5
Alchemist = 16.5
Artillerist = 24.5
About 9 pts, almost 40% lower
And at 11lth level the average if all attacks hit is :
Battlesmith = 34.5 for up to 5 attacks, 27.5 for the rest
Armorer = 27.5
Alchemist = 20
Artillerist = 30
About... 35% lower.
EDIT: for fairness artillerist should also be slightly lower due to it also using firebolt. Thus 22.5 at L5? 25.5 L11. (They can use more elements so can cast D8 Frostbolt. Sorry I only just noted that.)
PS also sucks I still only have 2 cantrips for a cantrip damage dependant class. Since one is Spare the dying, I only have acid splash until L11. That was a lot of levels with only one damage type...
The alchemist isn't badly designed because it doesn't "optimize" well. Optimization isn't a priority for game designers.
You have this backwards. Optimization isn't some nefarious thing concocted by the internet, it's a direct consequence of the designers' choices. It's players taking the tools they're given and seeing what they can do with them and how the different pieces fit together. When we talk about "the problem with optimization" what we're talking about are things the game designers put into the game. Systems they created that aren't always the most well planned or executed.
Luckily, 5e is straight forward and forgiving enough that many of these issues can be glossed over or might not come up in actual play, but that doesn't mean there still aren't issues.
I'm still of the opinion with the year gone of play that Alchemist is a functionally very weak class.
In raw damage output its bad. As a half caster, it lacks the spell levels and spell quantity of the mage types to overcast spells for extra damage, and lacking an extra attack like almost every other half caster I know of (Do any ranger classes lack an extra attack?) namely all the other artificer subclasses and every single paladin (except artillerist, which gets a flat D8 bonus, and a scaling damage 'pet' instead).
In healing it heals slightly more than the Battlesmith, but at a cost of a ton of wasted spells, and far far less than the artillerist with its temp HP turret. It heals far less than a full caster, as it cant overcast a spell for extra HP, and has less spells too.
Its spell list is quite frankly god awful compared to the other 3 too. It lacks a large number of thematicly apropriate spells like burning hands and fireball (flamethrower, and alchemist fire grenades) and has ZERO defensive spells unlike the other 3 subclasses. Admittedly it will get raise dead, but revivify is on all the artificer's lists so... meh? Also both raise dead AND revivify are on a paladin's list so its hardly unique there too.
In my honest opinion If you want to heal, play a cleric, druid or Divine soul sorcerer. If you want to be an inventor, play any other type of artificer. If you really want to be a support role andinventor, be an artillerist, or battlesmith. Artilelrist benefits earlier with the 'healing' turret. Battlesmith, once they get L9, gets the surges,and the Aura of vitality. Any artificer can flavour their spells as they like. Any infusion can be used as an arcane focus, so replicate magic item: bag of holding infusion BAM! bag of potions in your pocket when you heal with magic + take alchemy as your starting artisan skill you're an alchemist.
I also saw the post where MC to wizard and take the Artificer Initate feat and becomes almost a full caster and seriously regret not doing that at L5. So many more spell slots = so many more elixirs, a DECENT spell list with burning hands flamethrowers and fireball grenades galore!
Dont get me wrong, the RP thematic side is awesome, but we're not discussing RP. the question was is alchemist really weak compared to a battlesmith. It is. But if you want to be a healing support type artificer styled character, play any other type of artificer+ Divine soul Sorcerer/Cleric. you can use any infused item as the arcane focus for the artificer, and the cleric spells can be cast with the shield, so... infused shield? Done! Another option is use the quarterstaff as your melee weapon with or without a shield and cast the sorcery spells, cleric spells, artificer spells, have almost the same number and lvl range of spells as the full caster, and some of the Artificer advantages. A handful of infusions, perhapse a pet. perhapse an extra attack. perhapse a bonus D8 damage to your spells. etc etc.
If I die in the current campaign I have already made a start on my 'Frankenstein's Monster. He's building a warforged who is a divine soul battlesmith with pistol and quarterstaff healing from the front with their trusty steel defender. (Clockwork soul sorcerer would have been super cool too, but hey... we already had a clockwork sorcerer and didnt want to step on their toes).
The alchemist isn't badly designed because it doesn't "optimize" well. Optimization isn't a priority for game designers.
You have this backwards. Optimization isn't some nefarious thing concocted by the internet, it's a direct consequence of the designers' choices. It's players taking the tools they're given and seeing what they can do with them and how the different pieces fit together. When we talk about "the problem with optimization" what we're talking about are things the game designers put into the game. Systems they created that aren't always the most well planned or executed.
Luckily, 5e is straight forward and forgiving enough that many of these issues can be glossed over or might not come up in actual play, but that doesn't mean there still aren't issues.
You're almost there, but not quite.
Optimization is imposed on the system by players, using what the designers put there. It's not something the designers care about, at least not to any extent the most vocal members of the community do. Optimization, by its very nature, is about limiting choice. If the primary concern is, say, damage output, then anything which does not live up to an arbitrary "baseline" is going to fall short. It will be ignored or, worse, derided for being a "weak" choice. And such optimization, by its very nature, it also a flawed exercise. Because it cannot account for the several variables that other options can bring to an encounter. One character could dramatically improve another's performance, but theorycrafting cannot account for that. Nor should it. The dynamics of any encounter, especially a combat encounter, can turn on a dime. "Optimal" doesn't meaningfully account for much in the grand scheme of things.
Seeing how different elements of the game interact together can indeed be fun. I love doing it myself. But that's meant to expand options, not limit them, because we get to do more cool stuff. We aren't supposed to be continuously doing one cool thing at the expense of all other cool things. Whatever design flaws might exist, optimizers exacerbate the problem because their priorities clash with those of the designer(s).
I'm not saying people need to play the way the designers intend. Once you buy the game, it's yours to do with what you want. But complaining that it doesn't live up to your imaginary standard because it was made for someone else's imaginary standard is peak entitlement.
Nothing is "imposed" on the system. The hypothetical players you are blaming created none of the components of the system, they're only analyzing them and coming to conclusions. You can, of course, disagree with those conclusions, or point out reasons you think their interpretations are flawed, which is perfectly reasonable... but it's also perfectly reasonable for someone to not find "lower your standards" to be a satisfactory way to solve the problems they have, too. The nebulousness of your rebuttal is problematic too. Saying "This isn't meant to be a damage dealing option, so focusing on its damage output is unfair" is a reasonable criticism, but vagueposting about optimizers doesn't actually address any substantitive issue in either direction, it's just rhetoric.
That last line though, you know that's silly. There's nothing entitled about pointing out design problems or weak points or even just things you plain don't like about something that's been printed. It doesn't matter if it's because of optimization or for absolutely no reason at all.
Any and every standard a reader holds the text to is an imposition. It either does or does not do what they want or hope from it. Optimization, and optimizers, are the very subject of this entire thread. As for your disdain for rhetoric, that's what everyone here engages in. We're given nigh-unlimited space to type out our points. We can go on and on for paragraphs upon paragraphs. Because, sometimes, ideas need to be expanded on. This isn't the birdsite. We aren't limited to 280 characters, no should we be.
And, no, I wasn't being silly. The design problems and weak points are all subjective. Critique and offer up alternatives, if you have them, but criticizing them is bad form. Don't like it? Don't use it. Nobody's forcing you to play as a member of a particular race or class, or cast a specific spell. Don't like the exploration rules? Don't use them. Don't like encumbrance? Don't use it, and plenty of people don't. That doesn't mean we need to tear things down. Anyone can do that. It isn't special. Building something is.
I think, artificer has indeed a larger power gap between the various subclasses than other classes. Both armorer and battlesmith are powerful. Personally, as far as single class characters go, I think the armorer is the best subclass, while both armorer and battlesmith have great multiclass options. The other subclasses seem somewhat underwhelming in comparison.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
I would say WotC never intended an alchemist to cast Greenflame Blade.
One other thing, no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that occur that were never intended. And based on the specific sub-class in question and the one ability interacting with a single spell, I bet it never came up. Especially considering what the Alchemist started out as in the UA.
I realize I'm a little late to the thread, but I had to point this out.
At first you say that WotC "never intended" the Alchemist to cast Green-Flame Blade. Which means they actually put thought into making sure it does work.
Then the very next line you say that "no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that were never intended." Meaning that there are combinations that exist, that no one thought about, and slipped through.
Your argument is that they both thought about Alchemist's using GFB AND that they never considered that combination. I've never met a reality where someone clearly set out to do something they never considered.
I would say WotC never intended an alchemist to cast Greenflame Blade.
One other thing, no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that occur that were never intended. And based on the specific sub-class in question and the one ability interacting with a single spell, I bet it never came up. Especially considering what the Alchemist started out as in the UA.
I realize I'm a little late to the thread, but I had to point this out.
At first you say that WotC "never intended" the Alchemist to cast Green-Flame Blade. Which means they actually put thought into making sure it does work.
Then you've never playtested. Lets lay it out piece by piece.
WotC never intended - I'm specifically speaking about the game designers, not the various playtesters. The alchemist was (badly) designed to be a support subclass. And the game designers never intended an alchemist to use Green Flame Blade - meaning - they never though of a situation or just ignored any where an alchemist would use GFB and the interaction and requirement for alchemist tools.
Then the very next line you say that "no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that were never intended." Meaning that there are combinations that exist, that no one thought about, and slipped through.
Exactly, a combination that was missed (or more likely ignored by WotC) and then slipped though to later play testing (I'm assuming there is still more in house play testing after the changes are made to what is presented in UA). The published alchemist is quiet different than the one in UA. Where the UA subclass had different options(no healing word, a homunculus instead of elixirs) and GFB wasn't even on artificer or alchemist spell list. So in order to have an alchemist with GFB they would have had to multiclass. So yes a scenario that was ignored.
Your argument is that they both thought about Alchemist's using GFB AND that they never considered that combination. I've never met a reality where someone clearly set out to do something they never considered.
My argument is that they didn't even think about an alchemist casting GFB. Ever play test I went through you were limited to what was being tested and the PHB.
PS also sucks I still only have 2 cantrips for a cantrip damage dependant class. Since one is Spare the dying, I only have acid splash until L11. That was a lot of levels with only one damage type...
The cantrip situation sucks, but to be fair most other half-casters don't get cantrips at all.
Beg, steal, or build an All Purpose Tool +1 to get another cantrip. It's only 8 hours a day, but generally an "adventuring day" should be about 8 hours anyway. The +1 version is a mere Uncommon magic item so by the DMG you could invent one yourself in 20 work days for 500gp, or by XGtE 2 work weeks, 200gp and a special ingredient from a CR 4-8 monster. You don't have to use the tool as your focus, you just have to hold it.
It's really tempting to take a level of wizard though. 3 more cantrips and effectively the Ritual Caster (wizard) feat so you can keep a bunch of ritual spells on hand without needing to prepare them. The only hitch here is that the aren't great for combat cantrips because of spellcasting focus mismatch. A DM could reasonably say you can't use your alchemist tools as your focus to cast wizard cantrips. Still good for utility cantrips.
An interesting dip for the right alchemist could be a Arcana domain Cleric. 5 cantrips, but since they fire off your wisdom you probably don't want to use these for combat cantrips. Still, getting 5 utility cantrips here makes it easy to use all the alchemist cantrips for combat choices. Guidance, mending, mage hand, prestidigitation, etc.
I would say WotC never intended an alchemist to cast Greenflame Blade.
One other thing, no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that occur that were never intended. And based on the specific sub-class in question and the one ability interacting with a single spell, I bet it never came up. Especially considering what the Alchemist started out as in the UA.
I realize I'm a little late to the thread, but I had to point this out.
At first you say that WotC "never intended" the Alchemist to cast Green-Flame Blade. Which means they actually put thought into making sure it does work.
Then you've never playtested. Lets lay it out piece by piece.
WotC never intended - I'm specifically speaking about the game designers, not the various playtesters. The alchemist was (badly) designed to be a support subclass. And the game designers never intended an alchemist to use Green Flame Blade - meaning - they never though of a situation or just ignored any where an alchemist would use GFB and the interaction and requirement for alchemist tools.
Then the very next line you say that "no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that were never intended." Meaning that there are combinations that exist, that no one thought about, and slipped through.
Exactly, a combination that was missed (or more likely ignored by WotC) and then slipped though to later play testing (I'm assuming there is still more in house play testing after the changes are made to what is presented in UA). The published alchemist is quiet different than the one in UA. Where the UA subclass had different options(no healing word, a homunculus instead of elixirs) and GFB wasn't even on artificer or alchemist spell list. So in order to have an alchemist with GFB they would have had to multiclass. So yes a scenario that was ignored.
Your argument is that they both thought about Alchemist's using GFB AND that they never considered that combination. I've never met a reality where someone clearly set out to do something they never considered.
My argument is that they didn't even think about an alchemist casting GFB. Ever play test I went through you were limited to what was being tested and the PHB.
Counterpoint: Depending on which book you're using, yes they did.
When Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron reached version three and released with the Artificer and Alchemist subclass, green-flame blade was omitted because, at the time, they were setting-exclusive. Adventurer's League didn't allow for them to mix. But with home games, it was always possible to mix them. Nothing prevented a high elf from learning it and being an artificer. And nothing prevented an artificer from acquiring the Magic Initiate feat. But I'll grant it that, at the time, balancing the two wasn't a priority.
And it still isn't; because green-flame blade was added to the Artificer Spell List in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. That particular book made both the class and the spell setting agnostic. And it's not like it's a big deal to allow it anyway. The artificer doesn't need Alchemist's supplies to cast their spells. They can use any tool they're proficient with. They can also use any item which bears one of their infusions, like a handaxe bearing the Enhanced Weapon infusion.
I don't care if you think it's a badly-designed support subclass. People play the way they want to play, so their experiences and insights aren't necessarily indicative of authorial intent. Is this honestly over how the spell interacts with Alchemical Savant? Why? You just add a bonus equal to the artificer's intelligence modifier to one damage result of your choosing. And, yes, that could mean a flat bonus of what is functionally double their intelligence modifier to the "cleave" from 5th-level on, but so what? The numbers are coming from two different sources. You can stack bane with mind sliver, so why wouldn't you be able to stack green-flame blade with a feature which specifically modifies it? And even if the DM decides "no, you can only add it to the initial damage roll," then the feature is still working with the spell. This isn't rocket science.
Your experiences with play-testing are anecdotal. The old paradigm of PH+1 died off a while ago. You would have to have been involved with internal play-testing for the company since that shift for us to consider it worthwhile.
I would say WotC never intended an alchemist to cast Greenflame Blade.
One other thing, no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that occur that were never intended. And based on the specific sub-class in question and the one ability interacting with a single spell, I bet it never came up. Especially considering what the Alchemist started out as in the UA.
I realize I'm a little late to the thread, but I had to point this out.
At first you say that WotC "never intended" the Alchemist to cast Green-Flame Blade. Which means they actually put thought into making sure it does work.
Then you've never playtested. Lets lay it out piece by piece.
WotC never intended - I'm specifically speaking about the game designers, not the various playtesters. The alchemist was (badly) designed to be a support subclass. And the game designers never intended an alchemist to use Green Flame Blade - meaning - they never though of a situation or just ignored any where an alchemist would use GFB and the interaction and requirement for alchemist tools.
Then the very next line you say that "no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that were never intended." Meaning that there are combinations that exist, that no one thought about, and slipped through.
Exactly, a combination that was missed (or more likely ignored by WotC) and then slipped though to later play testing (I'm assuming there is still more in house play testing after the changes are made to what is presented in UA). The published alchemist is quiet different than the one in UA. Where the UA subclass had different options(no healing word, a homunculus instead of elixirs) and GFB wasn't even on artificer or alchemist spell list. So in order to have an alchemist with GFB they would have had to multiclass. So yes a scenario that was ignored.
Your argument is that they both thought about Alchemist's using GFB AND that they never considered that combination. I've never met a reality where someone clearly set out to do something they never considered.
My argument is that they didn't even think about an alchemist casting GFB. Ever play test I went through you were limited to what was being tested and the PHB.
Counterpoint: Depending on which book you're using, yes they did.
When Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron reached version three and released with the Artificer and Alchemist subclass, green-flame blade was omitted because, at the time, they were setting-exclusive. Adventurer's League didn't allow for them to mix. But with home games, it was always possible to mix them. Nothing prevented a high elf from learning it and being an artificer. And nothing prevented an artificer from acquiring the Magic Initiate feat. But I'll grant it that, at the time, balancing the two wasn't a priority.
And it still isn't; because green-flame blade was added to the Artificer Spell List in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. That particular book made both the class and the spell setting agnostic. And it's not like it's a big deal to allow it anyway. The artificer doesn't need Alchemist's supplies to cast their spells. They can use any tool they're proficient with. They can also use any item which bears one of their infusions, like a handaxe bearing the Enhanced Weapon infusion.
I don't care if you think it's a badly-designed support subclass. People play the way they want to play, so their experiences and insights aren't necessarily indicative of authorial intent. Is this honestly over how the spell interacts with Alchemical Savant? Why? You just add a bonus equal to the artificer's intelligence modifier to one damage result of your choosing. And, yes, that could mean a flat bonus of what is functionally double their intelligence modifier to the "cleave" from 5th-level on, but so what? The numbers are coming from two different sources. You can stack bane with mind sliver, so why wouldn't you be able to stack green-flame blade with a feature which specifically modifies it? And even if the DM decides "no, you can only add it to the initial damage roll," then the feature is still working with the spell. This isn't rocket science.
Your experiences with play-testing are anecdotal. The old paradigm of PH+1 died off a while ago. You would have to have been involved with internal play-testing for the company since that shift for us to consider it worthwhile.
Ignoring the GFB and Alchemist supply discussion. Where is your counter point?
I would say WotC never intended an alchemist to cast Greenflame Blade.
One other thing, no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that occur that were never intended. And based on the specific sub-class in question and the one ability interacting with a single spell, I bet it never came up. Especially considering what the Alchemist started out as in the UA.
I realize I'm a little late to the thread, but I had to point this out.
At first you say that WotC "never intended" the Alchemist to cast Green-Flame Blade. Which means they actually put thought into making sure it does work.
Then you've never playtested. Lets lay it out piece by piece.
WotC never intended - I'm specifically speaking about the game designers, not the various playtesters. The alchemist was (badly) designed to be a support subclass. And the game designers never intended an alchemist to use Green Flame Blade - meaning - they never though of a situation or just ignored any where an alchemist would use GFB and the interaction and requirement for alchemist tools.
Then the very next line you say that "no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that were never intended." Meaning that there are combinations that exist, that no one thought about, and slipped through.
Exactly, a combination that was missed (or more likely ignored by WotC) and then slipped though to later play testing (I'm assuming there is still more in house play testing after the changes are made to what is presented in UA). The published alchemist is quiet different than the one in UA. Where the UA subclass had different options(no healing word, a homunculus instead of elixirs) and GFB wasn't even on artificer or alchemist spell list. So in order to have an alchemist with GFB they would have had to multiclass. So yes a scenario that was ignored.
Your argument is that they both thought about Alchemist's using GFB AND that they never considered that combination. I've never met a reality where someone clearly set out to do something they never considered.
My argument is that they didn't even think about an alchemist casting GFB. Ever play test I went through you were limited to what was being tested and the PHB.
Counterpoint: Depending on which book you're using, yes they did.
When Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron reached version three and released with the Artificer and Alchemist subclass, green-flame blade was omitted because, at the time, they were setting-exclusive. Adventurer's League didn't allow for them to mix. But with home games, it was always possible to mix them. Nothing prevented a high elf from learning it and being an artificer. And nothing prevented an artificer from acquiring the Magic Initiate feat. But I'll grant it that, at the time, balancing the two wasn't a priority.
And it still isn't; because green-flame blade was added to the Artificer Spell List in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. That particular book made both the class and the spell setting agnostic. And it's not like it's a big deal to allow it anyway. The artificer doesn't need Alchemist's supplies to cast their spells. They can use any tool they're proficient with. They can also use any item which bears one of their infusions, like a handaxe bearing the Enhanced Weapon infusion.
I don't care if you think it's a badly-designed support subclass. People play the way they want to play, so their experiences and insights aren't necessarily indicative of authorial intent. Is this honestly over how the spell interacts with Alchemical Savant? Why? You just add a bonus equal to the artificer's intelligence modifier to one damage result of your choosing. And, yes, that could mean a flat bonus of what is functionally double their intelligence modifier to the "cleave" from 5th-level on, but so what? The numbers are coming from two different sources. You can stack bane with mind sliver, so why wouldn't you be able to stack green-flame blade with a feature which specifically modifies it? And even if the DM decides "no, you can only add it to the initial damage roll," then the feature is still working with the spell. This isn't rocket science.
Your experiences with play-testing are anecdotal. The old paradigm of PH+1 died off a while ago. You would have to have been involved with internal play-testing for the company since that shift for us to consider it worthwhile.
Ignoring the GFB and Alchemist Supplies discussion for the moment. What is your counterpoint?
Playtesting wasn't for Adventure League, it was for the game. Or at least the group I was with at the time. I'm sure there were AL specific groups as well. An alchemist using GFB wasn't considered as the spell, whatever reason you want to quote, wasn't on the spell list. In order for an alchemist to get GFB, it required either muti-classing or specific racial options. The class was initially considerably different from its UA than what was finally published in TCoE.
While my personal experience with play testing is anecdotal, the rules by which we could use UA content aren't.
Now back to the other bit.
GFB spell (specific rule) calls out that you must use a weapon to cast. Alchemical Savant (specific rule) states that the spell must be cast using alchemist supplies. But, Alchemy Supplies are very generically defined and it is easy enough to declare (or reskin) a basic weapon as part of your alchemist supplies. (Club or mace = paddle for stirring a cauldron; sickle = tool for gathering ingredients; dagger = dagger/knife used for chopping ingredients; etc.).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alchemists supplies are both the chemicals and the tools used to manipulate those chemicals. A flask, a stir stick, a pinch of salt, or a drop of blood are all equally "alchemists supplies".
Using your alchemist tools with a green flame blade is easy. Have a belt pouch of alchemical powder (sulphur, salt, whatever). You hold your weapon in one hand, reach your other hand into the pouch and grab a pinch, sprinkle the powder over your weapon as you cast the spell. Then make your attack. You could even use a two-handed weapon which is briefly held in one hand while you sprinkle, then once your sprinkling hand is empty you put it on the hilt.
If you want to use a shield that's a bit more complicated, but you're an artificer, so you could gimmick it up a bit more. You have to have some alchemists supplies in hand. Turn your shield into an alchemists supplies container by rigging it up with a bunch of pouches and stuff. You could even have a special grove on the shield that you keep your "green flame blade powder" in, so as part of casting the spell you draw your weapon through the groove. Rule of Cool it up. Solving problems with silly contraptions is on brand for artificers. It certainly won't make your alchemist overpowered.
On the relative DPS of the subclasses, don't forget the Homunculus Servant. Armorers and Alchemists will often have no use for their bonus action, so a HS 1d4+PB force damage is a great little bonus. And it's Force damage, which hardly anything resists. A steel defender does 1d8+Pb which is better, but not miles better. When all 4 subclasses are using their bonus action the gap closes a bit.
Assume 5th level artificers who have 20 init.
Battlesmith who infused a +1 sword can attack twice per round then his defender attacks. If all attacks hit that is 1d8+5 slashing, 1d8+5 slashing, 1d8+2 force
If all attack hit that is an average of 25.5
Armorer with guardian armor who infused a Homunculus servant attacks twice per round then her servant attacks. If all attacks hit that is 1d8+5 thunder, 1d8+5 thunder, 1d4+2 force
If all attack hit that is an average of 23.5 (if she uses her second infusion for Enhanced Weapon that goes up to 25.5)
Alchemist who uses alchemists tools to cast Firebolt and has infused a HS will attack once then the HS attacks. If all attacks hit that is 2d10+5 fire, 1d4+2 force
If all attack hit that is an average of 20.5
Artillerist who uses her Arcane firearm to cast Firebolt and has a Force Ballista will attack once per round then the ballista attacks. If all attacks hit that is 2d10+1d8 fire, 2d8 force
If all attack hit that is an average of
2024.5So if all attacks hit the spread is 20 to 25.5. Not a huge difference. Yeah, the battlesmith still does the most, but most of his damage is slashing damage, loads of things resist slashing damage. The Armorer does 2 points less, but it's mostly thunder damage and hardly anything resists thunder damage. They are basically equal. By using the servant infusion the Alchemist edges from 4th to 3rd place. The Artillerist does the least damage, but she is also the only one of the 4 who doesn't need to burn an infusion for basic everyday battle damage. All of those are also attack rolls, if facing a high AC opponent an artillerist or alchemist could switch to acid splash or create bonfire to get an attack with a Dex save instead while still keeping their subclass bonus damage.
Things will change up a little at 9th and 11th level. At 9th level the Battle smith gets an extra 2d6 force damage 5 times per day and the artillerists cannon damage increases by 1d8 every round, which one is better will depend on how many rounds of combat you face per day - if you're doing a dungeon crawl with a bunch of fights per day the artillerist is way better. The other 2 get utility instead of raw damage, with the armorer getting 2 bonus infusions and the alchemist stacking temp HP on all their elixirs.
At 11th level attack cantrips become more powerful, so this is a big boost to artillerists and alchemists that rely on cantrip spam as their go to attack. Firebolt goes from 2d10+stuff to 3d10+stuff.
Wait, I forgot something. At 10th level Enhanced Weapon changes from a +1 to a +2. The battlesmith should have a +2 sword by level 11. Having 6 infusion slots the armorer has probably enhanced his gauntlets to be +2 as well.
So at 11lth level the average if all attacks hit is
Battlesmith = 34.5 for up to 5 attacks, 27.5 for the rest (still with the oft resisted slashing damage)
Armorer = 27.5
Alchemist = 26
Artillerist = 30
So while the Artillerist is the weakest of the bunch at level 5, he is arguably the strongest at level 11.
While the alchemist comes out near the bottom at all levels I wouldn't discount them. Their round by round damage is only 4-6 points less than the top guy at any level, and their role as a second rate healbot is gonna be real handy whenever the cleric goes down. When you need it having Healing Word in your back pocket is clutch.
This part struck me. Magic physical damage is among the least resisted in the game last I looked?
The problem with optimization is it reduces choice. By its very nature, anything not deemed "optimal" must be removed from consideration. This makes the game less diverse and, summarily, less interesting.
Trying to play a "heal-bot" in 5e is a fool's errand. Damage mitigation, the prevention of hit point loss, has always been more efficient. So has just killing the darn thing. You see people asking about how to make a "tank" every so often, but that isn't really a thing in 5e. Very few classes and subclasses have tools to force, or otherwise incentivize, enemies to deal with a specific character. And the dynamic nature of combat means planed tactics can easy fall apart.
The alchemist isn't badly designed because it doesn't "optimize" well. Optimization isn't a priority for game designers.
Yeah I got the equation wrong there, I was only crediting the force ballista with 1d8. Thanks for pointing that out.
If the artillerist is using his cannon for temp HP he isn't using it for damage. The experimental elixirs can be made outside of combat, so they don't impact the action economy DPS. You can do shenanigans and pop out the cannon in the morning to give everyone max temp HP (13?) and then use spell slots the rest of the day.
The title of the thread is about the Battle Smith being objectively much stronger, and I don't think it is. The artillerist very strong and potentially the strongest, depending on the game. The alchemist is the weakest, but really not as bad as I thought before doing some math.
You're right! :)
I would argue that depends very much on how optimization is used. For instance, I generally will look to optimization to enable certain character concepts that would be quite un-fun to play otherwise (e.g. a character that makes heavy use of the net). Most of the optimization discussion I've seen is centered around the question "How can I make this concept work within an experienced group?" rather than "How do I make the best X?" In that way, it's enabling options for players, not removing them. When people complain about something that can't be optimized, it's usually because someone has a concept that can't be made to work well enough to feel useful in an experienced group.
Both Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford have gone on the record of Saying that type of "resistance" is not a factor for weather or not a spell or feature is above or below average dmg. the dmg only states Stacking resistances is what increases the CR not specific ones.
Now fire is resisted a lot but it also is one of the biggest "Beneficial shutdowns" of the game {regen removal, angry loss of targeting options, activates fear}.
as long as the alchemist has multiple options for damage types, resistance shouldn't be a problem.
The alchemist also has some freedom that the other classes don't
there are some distinct benefits of playing the alchemist. Do I think the design has some unnecessary limits? sure but there are times when it preforms better and those should not be taken for granted.
Its hardly a tax freedom when you have nothing to do with your bonus action. RAW you have no class option for this except for healing word (and from a quick look at other spell options namely expeditions retreat, ashardalon's stride, kinetic jaunt RUN AWAY!). And you have less spell slots to use this due to Elixirs. If Healing word is the way your going, the battlesmith has Aura of vitality at L9. A sustained "healing word" spell that uses just one L3 spell slot. If your argument is take a homunculus... every other artificer can do that too though the battlesmith and artillerist dont need to as the pet its part of their base class set AND they both get extra attacks too. The Armourer doesnt get a free pet, but gets 2 free infusions to cover the cost.
Also technicly eveyone's number calculations keep using firebolt. Fire is the most heavily resisted and immune damage type (Excluding poison) on the alchemist bonus damage list. If your calculations for damage use Acid splash which is more commonly used in my experience with a year of alchemist campaign gone so far, which is a 1D6 not a 1D10.
so... 2D6+5 Acid, 1D4+2 force
if all attacks hit, and they dont pass dex save
16.5
making 5th lvl more like:
Battlesmith = 25.5 for up to 5 attacks, 27.5 for the rest
Armorer = 25.5
Alchemist = 16.5
Artillerist = 24.5
About 9 pts, almost 40% lower
And at 11lth level the average if all attacks hit is :
Battlesmith = 34.5 for up to 5 attacks, 27.5 for the rest
Armorer = 27.5
Alchemist = 20
Artillerist = 30
About... 35% lower.
EDIT: for fairness artillerist should also be slightly lower due to it also using firebolt. Thus 22.5 at L5? 25.5 L11. (They can use more elements so can cast D8 Frostbolt. Sorry I only just noted that.)
PS also sucks I still only have 2 cantrips for a cantrip damage dependant class. Since one is Spare the dying, I only have acid splash until L11. That was a lot of levels with only one damage type...
You have this backwards. Optimization isn't some nefarious thing concocted by the internet, it's a direct consequence of the designers' choices. It's players taking the tools they're given and seeing what they can do with them and how the different pieces fit together. When we talk about "the problem with optimization" what we're talking about are things the game designers put into the game. Systems they created that aren't always the most well planned or executed.
Luckily, 5e is straight forward and forgiving enough that many of these issues can be glossed over or might not come up in actual play, but that doesn't mean there still aren't issues.
I'm still of the opinion with the year gone of play that Alchemist is a functionally very weak class.
In raw damage output its bad. As a half caster, it lacks the spell levels and spell quantity of the mage types to overcast spells for extra damage, and lacking an extra attack like almost every other half caster I know of (Do any ranger classes lack an extra attack?) namely all the other artificer subclasses and every single paladin (except artillerist, which gets a flat D8 bonus, and a scaling damage 'pet' instead).
In healing it heals slightly more than the Battlesmith, but at a cost of a ton of wasted spells, and far far less than the artillerist with its temp HP turret.
It heals far less than a full caster, as it cant overcast a spell for extra HP, and has less spells too.
Its spell list is quite frankly god awful compared to the other 3 too. It lacks a large number of thematicly apropriate spells like burning hands and fireball (flamethrower, and alchemist fire grenades) and has ZERO defensive spells unlike the other 3 subclasses. Admittedly it will get raise dead, but revivify is on all the artificer's lists so... meh? Also both raise dead AND revivify are on a paladin's list so its hardly unique there too.
In my honest opinion If you want to heal, play a cleric, druid or Divine soul sorcerer.
If you want to be an inventor, play any other type of artificer.
If you really want to be a support role and inventor, be an artillerist, or battlesmith. Artilelrist benefits earlier with the 'healing' turret. Battlesmith, once they get L9, gets the surges,and the Aura of vitality. Any artificer can flavour their spells as they like. Any infusion can be used as an arcane focus, so replicate magic item: bag of holding infusion BAM! bag of potions in your pocket when you heal with magic + take alchemy as your starting artisan skill you're an alchemist.
I also saw the post where MC to wizard and take the Artificer Initate feat and becomes almost a full caster and seriously regret not doing that at L5. So many more spell slots = so many more elixirs, a DECENT spell list with burning hands flamethrowers and fireball grenades galore!
Dont get me wrong, the RP thematic side is awesome, but we're not discussing RP. the question was is alchemist really weak compared to a battlesmith. It is. But if you want to be a healing support type artificer styled character, play any other type of artificer+ Divine soul Sorcerer/Cleric. you can use any infused item as the arcane focus for the artificer, and the cleric spells can be cast with the shield, so... infused shield? Done! Another option is use the quarterstaff as your melee weapon with or without a shield and cast the sorcery spells, cleric spells, artificer spells, have almost the same number and lvl range of spells as the full caster, and some of the Artificer advantages. A handful of infusions, perhapse a pet. perhapse an extra attack. perhapse a bonus D8 damage to your spells. etc etc.
If I die in the current campaign I have already made a start on my 'Frankenstein's Monster. He's building a warforged who is a divine soul battlesmith with pistol and quarterstaff healing from the front with their trusty steel defender. (Clockwork soul sorcerer would have been super cool too, but hey... we already had a clockwork sorcerer and didnt want to step on their toes).
You're almost there, but not quite.
Optimization is imposed on the system by players, using what the designers put there. It's not something the designers care about, at least not to any extent the most vocal members of the community do. Optimization, by its very nature, is about limiting choice. If the primary concern is, say, damage output, then anything which does not live up to an arbitrary "baseline" is going to fall short. It will be ignored or, worse, derided for being a "weak" choice. And such optimization, by its very nature, it also a flawed exercise. Because it cannot account for the several variables that other options can bring to an encounter. One character could dramatically improve another's performance, but theorycrafting cannot account for that. Nor should it. The dynamics of any encounter, especially a combat encounter, can turn on a dime. "Optimal" doesn't meaningfully account for much in the grand scheme of things.
Seeing how different elements of the game interact together can indeed be fun. I love doing it myself. But that's meant to expand options, not limit them, because we get to do more cool stuff. We aren't supposed to be continuously doing one cool thing at the expense of all other cool things. Whatever design flaws might exist, optimizers exacerbate the problem because their priorities clash with those of the designer(s).
I'm not saying people need to play the way the designers intend. Once you buy the game, it's yours to do with what you want. But complaining that it doesn't live up to your imaginary standard because it was made for someone else's imaginary standard is peak entitlement.
Nothing is "imposed" on the system. The hypothetical players you are blaming created none of the components of the system, they're only analyzing them and coming to conclusions. You can, of course, disagree with those conclusions, or point out reasons you think their interpretations are flawed, which is perfectly reasonable... but it's also perfectly reasonable for someone to not find "lower your standards" to be a satisfactory way to solve the problems they have, too. The nebulousness of your rebuttal is problematic too. Saying "This isn't meant to be a damage dealing option, so focusing on its damage output is unfair" is a reasonable criticism, but vagueposting about optimizers doesn't actually address any substantitive issue in either direction, it's just rhetoric.
That last line though, you know that's silly. There's nothing entitled about pointing out design problems or weak points or even just things you plain don't like about something that's been printed. It doesn't matter if it's because of optimization or for absolutely no reason at all.
[REDACTED]
Any and every standard a reader holds the text to is an imposition. It either does or does not do what they want or hope from it. Optimization, and optimizers, are the very subject of this entire thread. As for your disdain for rhetoric, that's what everyone here engages in. We're given nigh-unlimited space to type out our points. We can go on and on for paragraphs upon paragraphs. Because, sometimes, ideas need to be expanded on. This isn't the birdsite. We aren't limited to 280 characters, no should we be.
And, no, I wasn't being silly. The design problems and weak points are all subjective. Critique and offer up alternatives, if you have them, but criticizing them is bad form. Don't like it? Don't use it. Nobody's forcing you to play as a member of a particular race or class, or cast a specific spell. Don't like the exploration rules? Don't use them. Don't like encumbrance? Don't use it, and plenty of people don't. That doesn't mean we need to tear things down. Anyone can do that. It isn't special. Building something is.
I think, artificer has indeed a larger power gap between the various subclasses than other classes. Both armorer and battlesmith are powerful. Personally, as far as single class characters go, I think the armorer is the best subclass, while both armorer and battlesmith have great multiclass options. The other subclasses seem somewhat underwhelming in comparison.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
I realize I'm a little late to the thread, but I had to point this out.
At first you say that WotC "never intended" the Alchemist to cast Green-Flame Blade. Which means they actually put thought into making sure it does work.
Then the very next line you say that "no matter how much play testing is done, there are going to be situations that were never intended." Meaning that there are combinations that exist, that no one thought about, and slipped through.
Your argument is that they both thought about Alchemist's using GFB AND that they never considered that combination. I've never met a reality where someone clearly set out to do something they never considered.
Then you've never playtested. Lets lay it out piece by piece.
WotC never intended - I'm specifically speaking about the game designers, not the various playtesters. The alchemist was (badly) designed to be a support subclass. And the game designers never intended an alchemist to use Green Flame Blade - meaning - they never though of a situation or just ignored any where an alchemist would use GFB and the interaction and requirement for alchemist tools.
Exactly, a combination that was missed (or more likely ignored by WotC) and then slipped though to later play testing (I'm assuming there is still more in house play testing after the changes are made to what is presented in UA). The published alchemist is quiet different than the one in UA. Where the UA subclass had different options(no healing word, a homunculus instead of elixirs) and GFB wasn't even on artificer or alchemist spell list. So in order to have an alchemist with GFB they would have had to multiclass. So yes a scenario that was ignored.
My argument is that they didn't even think about an alchemist casting GFB. Ever play test I went through you were limited to what was being tested and the PHB.
The cantrip situation sucks, but to be fair most other half-casters don't get cantrips at all.
Beg, steal, or build an All Purpose Tool +1 to get another cantrip. It's only 8 hours a day, but generally an "adventuring day" should be about 8 hours anyway. The +1 version is a mere Uncommon magic item so by the DMG you could invent one yourself in 20 work days for 500gp, or by XGtE 2 work weeks, 200gp and a special ingredient from a CR 4-8 monster. You don't have to use the tool as your focus, you just have to hold it.
It's really tempting to take a level of wizard though. 3 more cantrips and effectively the Ritual Caster (wizard) feat so you can keep a bunch of ritual spells on hand without needing to prepare them. The only hitch here is that the aren't great for combat cantrips because of spellcasting focus mismatch. A DM could reasonably say you can't use your alchemist tools as your focus to cast wizard cantrips. Still good for utility cantrips.
An interesting dip for the right alchemist could be a Arcana domain Cleric. 5 cantrips, but since they fire off your wisdom you probably don't want to use these for combat cantrips. Still, getting 5 utility cantrips here makes it easy to use all the alchemist cantrips for combat choices. Guidance, mending, mage hand, prestidigitation, etc.
Counterpoint: Depending on which book you're using, yes they did.
When Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron reached version three and released with the Artificer and Alchemist subclass, green-flame blade was omitted because, at the time, they were setting-exclusive. Adventurer's League didn't allow for them to mix. But with home games, it was always possible to mix them. Nothing prevented a high elf from learning it and being an artificer. And nothing prevented an artificer from acquiring the Magic Initiate feat. But I'll grant it that, at the time, balancing the two wasn't a priority.
And it still isn't; because green-flame blade was added to the Artificer Spell List in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. That particular book made both the class and the spell setting agnostic. And it's not like it's a big deal to allow it anyway. The artificer doesn't need Alchemist's supplies to cast their spells. They can use any tool they're proficient with. They can also use any item which bears one of their infusions, like a handaxe bearing the Enhanced Weapon infusion.
I don't care if you think it's a badly-designed support subclass. People play the way they want to play, so their experiences and insights aren't necessarily indicative of authorial intent. Is this honestly over how the spell interacts with Alchemical Savant? Why? You just add a bonus equal to the artificer's intelligence modifier to one damage result of your choosing. And, yes, that could mean a flat bonus of what is functionally double their intelligence modifier to the "cleave" from 5th-level on, but so what? The numbers are coming from two different sources. You can stack bane with mind sliver, so why wouldn't you be able to stack green-flame blade with a feature which specifically modifies it? And even if the DM decides "no, you can only add it to the initial damage roll," then the feature is still working with the spell. This isn't rocket science.
Your experiences with play-testing are anecdotal. The old paradigm of PH+1 died off a while ago. You would have to have been involved with internal play-testing for the company since that shift for us to consider it worthwhile.
Ignoring the GFB and Alchemist supply discussion. Where is your counter point?
Ignoring the GFB and Alchemist Supplies discussion for the moment. What is your counterpoint?
Playtesting wasn't for Adventure League, it was for the game. Or at least the group I was with at the time. I'm sure there were AL specific groups as well. An alchemist using GFB wasn't considered as the spell, whatever reason you want to quote, wasn't on the spell list. In order for an alchemist to get GFB, it required either muti-classing or specific racial options. The class was initially considerably different from its UA than what was finally published in TCoE.
While my personal experience with play testing is anecdotal, the rules by which we could use UA content aren't.
Now back to the other bit.
GFB spell (specific rule) calls out that you must use a weapon to cast. Alchemical Savant (specific rule) states that the spell must be cast using alchemist supplies. But, Alchemy Supplies are very generically defined and it is easy enough to declare (or reskin) a basic weapon as part of your alchemist supplies. (Club or mace = paddle for stirring a cauldron; sickle = tool for gathering ingredients; dagger = dagger/knife used for chopping ingredients; etc.).