In the announcement for the book, it specifically mentions that the artificer is getting updated with Tasha's cauldron of everything. I am wondering what everyone's wishlist for an update would include.
I would make the following changes, what changes would you guys make?
General changes
Expanded and refined spell lists
Shield added baseline (3/4ths of subclasses get it by default)
Shatter added baseline (1/2 of the subclasses get it by default)
Immovable object added baseline (I think it fits flavor-wise)
Wrist Pocket added baseline (Same on flavor)
Find traps added baseline (I think it fits with their skillset)
Mending as a free cantrip
Expanded replicate magic item list to include more items from supplemental books
Various Enhance infusions upgraded to get a +3 option at a higher level
Alchemist changes
Experimental Elixer is no longer random.
Experimental Elixer's can be created as a bonus action
Acid Stream added to spell list
Artillerist
2nd turret at an earlier level
Temp hp from Protector stacks with both turrets if 2 are active
Protector's healing increases at the same time the other two get better.
Armorer
Becomes an official subclass with changes
Battlesmith
Spellsharing for the iron defender at a higher level similar to beastmaster ranger.
Those are the changes I would do to balance/improve the class what would everyone else do?
Don't get your hopes up. It's sounding more like the 'update' is to wording and flavor, with the TCE artificer stripping out any mention of Eberron, more than a mechanics overhaul. The artificer is new enough, after all, that supposedly it doesn't need the class updates things like the ranger or sorcerer are getting in TCE.
Shield being a base artificer spell makes sense, and if artificers do get any sort of CFVs, I would expect an expanded spell list that probably has shield on it. Shatter does not, however. Artificers specifically do not have any spells in their spell list designed for Damage First outside their cantrips; the only damaging spells on the spell list are Heat Metal because tool reasons and a few spells which deal damage incidentally, like Catapult or Bigby's Hand. The fact that it shows up on a couple of ESLs for subclasses doesn't mean it fits the artificer's overall creed of "artificer spells are support and utility; they do not deal damage."
Dunamancy isn't going to be integrated into the base game the way people keep pushing for it. Dunamancy was built specifically as a set of rare, difficult to access spells the DM can use to highlight a powerful boss or as rewards for spellcasters that delve into Ancient Secrets or make powerful friends. As much as people push back against that and demand that the spells be treated like normal, ordinary stuff? I like dunamancy being difficult to access, and frankly wish there were more spells that existed outside of normal spell lists. A selection of twenty or thirty 'Esoteric' spells in the DMG that players didn't have access to outside being awarded the spell by the DM would be heckin' cool. None of that really matters for artificers though, I suppose.
That said? If they do somehow decide to rewrite the artificer base class, all I really hope and pray for is that they don't break it. They broke the Alchemist subclass, made it entirely unplayable and strictly worse than taking no artificer subclass at all - I had to change my character off of Alchemist when Rising came out and completely rewrite her story, and I'm still unsatisfied with the results.
Mending as a base selection would be nice. They did that for the Arcane Trickster, gave it an 'extra' cantrip that simply had to be Mage Hand. Artificers could stand for that particular cantrip tax to be removed, given how Mending is baked into many of the subclasses' critters. Simply adding Mending to the class outside its measly two-cantrip spell selection would do wonders for relieving cantrip pressure
I will hope that the Armorer's fifteenth-level feature stops sucking, as right now the 'dimestore Guiding Bolt knockoff' ability for the Infiltrator armor model (e.g. the only one worth using fight me you Guardian jackwads) seems egregiously 'Meh'. That'd be nice, and since the Armorer isn't locked down yet they can make those kind of changes. Personally would like to see something more actually Infiltrator about the Infiltrator armor. Perhaps INT mod uses of a one-round Greater Invisibility as a bonus action, to signal the artificer integrating a cloaking spell into her armor to slip into places undetected the way an 'Infiltrator' bloody well should. Or something.
I honestly kinda miss all artificers getting Extra Attack. That was one of the big reasons I had to purge alchemist from my mind; the character I had built was heavily reliant on weapon combat and didn't work as a spell-popping dimwit. A variant feature giving all artificers Extra Attack, and offering the Smith and Armorer a new fifth-level subclass feature in place of EA would be cool, though people would then complain like mad about MADness and having to find an attacking stat as well as Intelligence.
Beyond that? Just...please don't break shit, Wizards. I already had to scramble to save my artificer once, and I was not entirely successful. Don't bloody do it to me again, please...
Mending as a freebie cantrip and/or spells that heal constructs (with a casting time less than one minute) being added to the Artificer list.
Dragon's Breath added to the Artificer spell list. It fits so well as an Artificer spell it's ridiculous they didn't include it originally.
Some kind of spell (could be a cantrip) that provides Alchemist's with necrotic damage beyond just Blight.
Some modification to Alchemical Savant that allows the damage to be applied to recurring damage rolls to make better use of DOT spells (the majority of what the Alchemist has access to) instead of something that's best used by single damage Area of Effect spells (of which the Alchemist has very and they're pretty mediocre for their level). Like instead of applying the bonus to "one roll of the spell" applying the bonus "once per turn." Though this would mess with things like applying the bonus to mass healing word (bonus action to cast) and then in the same turn applying the bonus to firebolt (action to cast), so it may not be a perfect change. Alternately, just adding Vitriolic Sphere as an Alchemist Spell would be nice.
A simple modification to Might of the Master so that the bonus is "Your proficiency bonus - 2 (minumum of 0)" instead of increasing by 1 every time your proficiency bonus increases by 1. This helps prevent miscalculations of the bonus since HS is an option at level 6 (prof bonus has already increased once). It also avoids cheesing extra permanent bonuses through something that might temporarily increase your proficiency bonus. Or better yet just make it your proficiency bonus without the -2 because the ability scores on the Homunculus Servant and Steel Defender are pretty lackluster and never increase.
More infusions (I feel it's pretty likely the Spell Refueling ring will make it in the book.)
Some consumable magic items added to the Replicate Magic Item list. Currently there are some common magic items in XGTE that are consumables which basically translates into a once per day ability when picked as an artificer infusion. It'd be neat to see that expanded with a few options for potions or scrolls.
Remove the randomness from Experimental Elixir
Alternate/expanded Experimental Elixir list. The current list isn't bad (except for swiftness in my opinion) but I'd prefer more or more interesting options.
Some artificer exclusive spells would be nice.
Changes I think are decently likely:
More infusions (basically confirmed)
Couple spells added to the list here and there
Maybe a magic item or two designed for artificers?
For the most part I am already happy with the Artificer the way it is. My exceptions are:
We are the only 1/2 caster who gets absolutely NO unique spells of our own like: Hunter - Hunter's Mark, Paladin - Smites.
Spells/Cantrips like: Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade (boom of which enhance a weapon), Dragon Breath (a great additional spell of the Attillerist), etc.
Remove the randomness from Experimental Elixir
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Let's take a moment to consider if the Artillterist's Eldritch Cannon was instead an "Experimental Cannon" the difference being that the first use per day the Artillerist rolls 1d6. A 1-2 summons a Flamethrower, a 3-4 summons an Eldritch Cannon, and a 5-6 summons a Protector.
Would this change improve the Artillerist or make it objectively worse?
Let's instead imagine if the Steel Defender were instead the "Experimental Defender." Let's say for the first 1 minute of combat you experience in a day your bonus action you take to command the steel defender instead of it taking the action you command it to take instead you roll a 1d6 and it takes one of it's available commandable actions. Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, Search or if you roll a 6 you get your pick of one of the actions in its stat block.
Would this change improve the Battle Smith or make it objectively worse?
So now, tell me, how do these elixirs being "Experimental" make the Alchemist a better subclass?
And if it doesn't improve the subclass then why does it even exist?
The only justifcation, and I mean ONLY justification for Experimental Elixir being random I've seen. EVER. On these forums or anywhere else has been poor unsatisfying lip service to the vague sciencey sounding adjective "Experimental" despite the fact that a 1d6 dice roll for one of 6 well defined beneficial outcomes has never sounded like an experiment to me.
Experiments involve meticulous notetaking. They involve REPEATABLE RESULTS. They involve understanding what you put into a system and analyzing what came out of it to increase your understanding of interactions (in this case alchemical) involved yet no matter how much I might try and retry the same control parameters the outcome will always be a 1 in 6 dice roll unless I use a spell slot.
These aren't experiments. They are ACCIDENTS. Accidents somehow mysteriously (almost suspiciously) limited to 1 in 6 beneficial outcomes. 1 in 6 outcomes that from a scientific aspect seem to be maddeningly limited. They are accidents that the Alchemist also for some reason doesn't really learn from outside of how to force them to somehow reliably cause temporary HP overnight one day.
If there were only 6 kinds of potions that existed in the world of D&D instead of the 44 just presented in the DMG alone (22 if we limit ourselves to just common and uncommon for lip service to balance) maybe that might make sense. But no matter what new set of ingredients you choose to use Experimental Elixirs will always produce the same set of 6 outcomes.
Imagine if instead there were a large massive table similar in size (though not identical) to the wild magic surge table. This would include both beneficial results and detrimental. And every time you rolled an experiment you got to mark down and keep a small set of up to 6 guaranteed outcomes you could brew in the morning. THAT would be experimentation with repeatable results that you could change with future experimentation. It would be actual experimental elixirs instead of "experimental" elixirs.
I don't hate the randomness of experimental elixir because I hate rolling dice (I don't).
I hate the randomness in this implementation is because it's shallow and stupid as hell.
EVERYTHING about Experimental Elixir screams "oh shit, they didn't like the homunculus, they keep asking for potions instead! This book needs to be in the print ship in two months - somebody figure out some kind of potion-shaped class feature we can wedge in there quick!"
It's poorly thought out, poorly designed, poorly implemented, and just POOR. It is a singularly awful piece of class design that managed to single-handedly ruin the entire Alchemist subclass.
**** Experimental Elixir with the largest and shiniest of laboratory glassware.
EVERYTHING about Experimental Elixir screams "oh shit, they didn't like the homunculus, they keep asking for potions instead! This book needs to be in the print ship in two months - somebody figure out some kind of potion-shaped class feature we can wedge in there quick!"
It's poorly thought out, poorly designed, poorly implemented, and just POOR. It is a singularly awful piece of class design that managed to single-handedly ruin the entire Alchemist subclass.
**** Experimental Elixir with the largest and shiniest of laboratory glassware.
That’s why I added my houserule to it, the one you liked:
Any elixir you create with this feature lasts until it is used, or until the end of your next long rest. When you use this feature to create an experimental elixir after a long rest, for each one you can make, you may instead choose to maintain an experimental elixir you have made previously using this feature.
Imagine if instead there were a large massive table similar in size (though not identical) to the wild magic surge table. This would include both beneficial results and detrimental. And every time you rolled an experiment you got to mark down and keep a small set of up to 6 guaranteed outcomes you could brew in the morning. THAT would be experimentation with repeatable results that you could change with future experimentation. It would be actual experimental elixirs instead of "experimental" elixirs.
I love this idea. And then at levels 5, 9 and 15 where you gain a subclass feature, you could additionally pick one unknown result of your choice from the table and add it to your 'known recipes' list so that Lady Luck doesn't leave you with a list of 6 terribad elixir options.
To keep the 'mad scientist' aficionados happy, perhaps you only roll to learn what one of your 'unknown' potions does when it's consumed, not when it's concocted.
Let's take a moment to consider if the Artillterist's Eldritch Cannon was instead an "Experimental Cannon" the difference being that the first use per day the Artillerist rolls 1d6. A 1-2 summons a Flamethrower, a 3-4 summons an Eldritch Cannon, and a 5-6 summons a Protector.
Why should we consider that though? It's not the case. It's not an experimental cannon so the current rules fit just fine. That's such a strawman. You don't like a random table even in the most slightest form. Just say that. No need to pull something out of your ass to support that opinion.
Because the other two subclasses are brilliant examples of how level 3 Artificer subclass features don't have to be random. And the Alchemist's feature doesn't have to be random either. The purpose of using a spell slot in those classes is to get more uses of the feature. The alchemist doesn't need to add "and to remove the 5/6 chance of not getting what you want" to that. The elixir not being random isn't going to adversely affect balance. So why have it be random?
Lip service to an adjective is in my opinion not a good enough reason because the feature doesn't HAVE to be called "Experimental Elixir" that's probably the easiest thing to change about it.
Seriously. Do you honestly believe the feature is better for being random? I legitimately want to know if you do. Does the random 1d6 make it more enjoyable for you? Because the general consensus seems to be that it makes the feature worse. We might be overreacting as to just how much, but if people generally don't like the feature why insist on it existing?
Experiments involve meticulous notetaking. They involve REPEATABLE RESULTS. They involve understanding what you put into a system and analyzing what came out of it to increase your understanding of interactions (in this case alchemical) involved yet no matter how much I might try and retry the same control parameters the outcome will always be a 1 in 6 dice roll unless I use a spell slot.
It's honestly quite ironic you mention that and then give the answer yourself. Using the spell slot IS doing controlled experiments based on the knowledge you achieved before by having something unexpected occur (aka rolling the 1d6). How you roleplay it us up to you but the fact that you CAN get the exact result you want by putting in some more effort is exactly what you mention there. The 1d6 roll is just the alchemist trying something he didn't try before that may or may not lead to a result he achieved before by doing something else.
If the 1d6 is not enough variation for you, then sure I can agree on that. Let's make the one roll you have to do even more random lol
You seem to be missing the point. I can't tell if its deliberate or not. For now I'm assuming it's not.
If randomness is to exist I want the randomness to be meaningful. I want that meaning backed up by satisfying mechanics. Not shallow bullshit. Not something logically inconsistent. If that means increasing the pool of outcomes so be it. The current system is shallow bullshit. Having to expend a spell slot to create a specific elixir instead of a random one makes sense from a gameplay perspective. From a roleplay perspective it's logically inconsistent.
Why is repeating the results of an experiment consistently more difficult than the initial experiment itself?
Here's my proposed system hopefully rephrased to be more understandable.
- You have a list of 6 known options for your Experimental Elixir. - For your free uses of the elixir you can just choose which option you want. - After a long rest you can choose to experiment by rolling on a larger table to produce an elixir you don't currently know how to make. - After producing that elixir you can choose whether or not to replace one of your known options with that new elixir.
See? That's all I want.
In the current Experimental Elixir you "experiment" every day whether you want to or not. In this version you choose to experiment.
I'd even be fine with that list of 6 starting smaller and growing over time. I've proposed something similar to this in another thread a while ago.
To be clear what I'd want is an expandable system with depth and a better representation for experimentation even if it includes randomness.
What I'd settle for is removing a once per day randomness that I feel serves no dang purpose because I find it less and less likely that WOTC will ever give us the former.
Yes I enjoy the randomness for this kind of flavoured subclass as a baseline and would like it to stay. Improving something is always an option and should generally be desired but I don't think the subclass in itself would be improved by removing the randomness and would rather see the feature of random elixir itself getting improved on. However if the question is to leave it as it is or remove the randomness completely then my vote goes for leave it as it is.
Problem 1: the random elixir you roll for on long rest is never the one you want. Murphy's Law and the whimsical cruelty of the cosmos demand it.
Problem 2: Expending a spell slot of 2nd level or higher wastes the extra levels of the spell, as the elixir gained by blowing your magic for the day is the same whether you use a first, a second, a ninth, or a twentieth. Artificers do not begin to have enough spell slots to go around wasting what few they do have on underpowered elixir options.
Problem 3: The effects are not remotely powerful or impactful enough to warrant their randomized nature. Effects from the Wild Magic table range from comedic fluff to encounter-altering, possibly even character arc-altering. Most EE options are generally weaker than their nearest equivalent first-level spells.
Problem 4: Action economy prevents creating new elixirs from being viable in combat. It takes an action to create the elixir, an action to give the elixir to someone else, and yet a third action to then consume that elixir. That is three heckin' turns to cast a 0.75th or so level spell on an ally if you discover that against all possible odds, one of your 0.75trh-level liquid not-a-spells happens to be what the party needs in a fracas.
The feature is bad and it should feel bad. The mad-scientist tropes destroyed the Alchemist subclass and I will never not be infinitely salty about it. Or stop blaming the playerbase for completely, permanently ruining the excellent UA 2019 Alchemist for everyone who really loved it.
Problem 1: the random elixir you roll for on long rest is never the one you want. Murphy's Law and the whimsical cruelty of the cosmos demand it.
Problem 2: Expending a spell slot of 2nd level or higher wastes the extra levels of the spell, as the elixir gained by blowing your magic for the day is the same whether you use a first, a second, a ninth, or a twentieth. Artificers do not begin to have enough spell slots to go around wasting what few they do have on underpowered elixir options.
Problem 3: The effects are not remotely powerful or impactful enough to warrant their randomized nature. Effects from the Wild Magic table range from comedic fluff to encounter-altering, possibly even character arc-altering. Most EE options are generally weaker than their nearest equivalent first-level spells.
Problem 4: Action economy prevents creating new elixirs from being viable in combat. It takes an action to create the elixir, an action to give the elixir to someone else, and yet a third action to then consume that elixir. That is three heckin' turns to cast a 0.75th or so level spell on an ally if you discover that against all possible odds, one of your 0.75trh-level liquid not-a-spells happens to be what the party needs in a fracas.
The feature is bad and it should feel bad. The mad-scientist tropes destroyed the Alchemist subclass and I will never not be infinitely salty about it. Or stop blaming the playerbase for completely, permanently ruining the excellent UA 2019 Alchemist for everyone who really loved it.
Hence why i would change it to a bonus action and remove the randomness. Doing so would make it fairly easy to make and use one yourself in a single turn. I would also add that "you may use an action to consume a potion yourself and/or throw one to an ally within 30 feet, who can then spend a reaction to consume it" Now that you bring up the spell level issue I would probably allow the creation of an additional potion per the level of spell spent and just toss out the max number of brewed potions entirely. I think freebies = to proficiency mod would also be better.
Reference - https://www.ign.com/articles/dungeons-dragons-announces-new-book-and-fall-event
In the announcement for the book, it specifically mentions that the artificer is getting updated with Tasha's cauldron of everything. I am wondering what everyone's wishlist for an update would include.
I would make the following changes, what changes would you guys make?
General changes
Alchemist changes
Artillerist
Armorer
Battlesmith
Those are the changes I would do to balance/improve the class what would everyone else do?
Don't get your hopes up. It's sounding more like the 'update' is to wording and flavor, with the TCE artificer stripping out any mention of Eberron, more than a mechanics overhaul. The artificer is new enough, after all, that supposedly it doesn't need the class updates things like the ranger or sorcerer are getting in TCE.
Shield being a base artificer spell makes sense, and if artificers do get any sort of CFVs, I would expect an expanded spell list that probably has shield on it. Shatter does not, however. Artificers specifically do not have any spells in their spell list designed for Damage First outside their cantrips; the only damaging spells on the spell list are Heat Metal because tool reasons and a few spells which deal damage incidentally, like Catapult or Bigby's Hand. The fact that it shows up on a couple of ESLs for subclasses doesn't mean it fits the artificer's overall creed of "artificer spells are support and utility; they do not deal damage."
Dunamancy isn't going to be integrated into the base game the way people keep pushing for it. Dunamancy was built specifically as a set of rare, difficult to access spells the DM can use to highlight a powerful boss or as rewards for spellcasters that delve into Ancient Secrets or make powerful friends. As much as people push back against that and demand that the spells be treated like normal, ordinary stuff? I like dunamancy being difficult to access, and frankly wish there were more spells that existed outside of normal spell lists. A selection of twenty or thirty 'Esoteric' spells in the DMG that players didn't have access to outside being awarded the spell by the DM would be heckin' cool. None of that really matters for artificers though, I suppose.
That said? If they do somehow decide to rewrite the artificer base class, all I really hope and pray for is that they don't break it. They broke the Alchemist subclass, made it entirely unplayable and strictly worse than taking no artificer subclass at all - I had to change my character off of Alchemist when Rising came out and completely rewrite her story, and I'm still unsatisfied with the results.
Mending as a base selection would be nice. They did that for the Arcane Trickster, gave it an 'extra' cantrip that simply had to be Mage Hand. Artificers could stand for that particular cantrip tax to be removed, given how Mending is baked into many of the subclasses' critters. Simply adding Mending to the class outside its measly two-cantrip spell selection would do wonders for relieving cantrip pressure
I will hope that the Armorer's fifteenth-level feature stops sucking, as right now the 'dimestore Guiding Bolt knockoff' ability for the Infiltrator armor model (e.g. the only one worth using fight me you Guardian jackwads) seems egregiously 'Meh'. That'd be nice, and since the Armorer isn't locked down yet they can make those kind of changes. Personally would like to see something more actually Infiltrator about the Infiltrator armor. Perhaps INT mod uses of a one-round Greater Invisibility as a bonus action, to signal the artificer integrating a cloaking spell into her armor to slip into places undetected the way an 'Infiltrator' bloody well should. Or something.
I honestly kinda miss all artificers getting Extra Attack. That was one of the big reasons I had to purge alchemist from my mind; the character I had built was heavily reliant on weapon combat and didn't work as a spell-popping dimwit. A variant feature giving all artificers Extra Attack, and offering the Smith and Armorer a new fifth-level subclass feature in place of EA would be cool, though people would then complain like mad about MADness and having to find an attacking stat as well as Intelligence.
Beyond that? Just...please don't break shit, Wizards. I already had to scramble to save my artificer once, and I was not entirely successful. Don't bloody do it to me again, please...
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd like to see the following:
Changes I'd like to see:
Alternately, just adding Vitriolic Sphere as an Alchemist Spell would be nice.
Or better yet just make it your proficiency bonus without the -2 because the ability scores on the Homunculus Servant and Steel Defender are pretty lackluster and never increase.
Changes I think are decently likely:
For the most part I am already happy with the Artificer the way it is. My exceptions are:
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I love how everyone keeps saying
- Remove randomness from Experimental elixir -
Let's take a moment to consider if the Artillterist's Eldritch Cannon was instead an "Experimental Cannon" the difference being that the first use per day the Artillerist rolls 1d6. A 1-2 summons a Flamethrower, a 3-4 summons an Eldritch Cannon, and a 5-6 summons a Protector.
Would this change improve the Artillerist or make it objectively worse?
Let's instead imagine if the Steel Defender were instead the "Experimental Defender." Let's say for the first 1 minute of combat you experience in a day your bonus action you take to command the steel defender instead of it taking the action you command it to take instead you roll a 1d6 and it takes one of it's available commandable actions. Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, Search or if you roll a 6 you get your pick of one of the actions in its stat block.
Would this change improve the Battle Smith or make it objectively worse?
So now, tell me, how do these elixirs being "Experimental" make the Alchemist a better subclass?
And if it doesn't improve the subclass then why does it even exist?
The only justifcation, and I mean ONLY justification for Experimental Elixir being random I've seen. EVER. On these forums or anywhere else has been poor unsatisfying lip service to the vague sciencey sounding adjective "Experimental" despite the fact that a 1d6 dice roll for one of 6 well defined beneficial outcomes has never sounded like an experiment to me.
Experiments involve meticulous notetaking. They involve REPEATABLE RESULTS. They involve understanding what you put into a system and analyzing what came out of it to increase your understanding of interactions (in this case alchemical) involved yet no matter how much I might try and retry the same control parameters the outcome will always be a 1 in 6 dice roll unless I use a spell slot.
These aren't experiments. They are ACCIDENTS. Accidents somehow mysteriously (almost suspiciously) limited to 1 in 6 beneficial outcomes. 1 in 6 outcomes that from a scientific aspect seem to be maddeningly limited. They are accidents that the Alchemist also for some reason doesn't really learn from outside of how to force them to somehow reliably cause temporary HP overnight one day.
If there were only 6 kinds of potions that existed in the world of D&D instead of the 44 just presented in the DMG alone (22 if we limit ourselves to just common and uncommon for lip service to balance) maybe that might make sense. But no matter what new set of ingredients you choose to use Experimental Elixirs will always produce the same set of 6 outcomes.
Imagine if instead there were a large massive table similar in size (though not identical) to the wild magic surge table. This would include both beneficial results and detrimental. And every time you rolled an experiment you got to mark down and keep a small set of up to 6 guaranteed outcomes you could brew in the morning. THAT would be experimentation with repeatable results that you could change with future experimentation. It would be actual experimental elixirs instead of "experimental" elixirs.
I don't hate the randomness of experimental elixir because I hate rolling dice (I don't).
I hate the randomness in this implementation is because it's shallow and stupid as hell.
Hear hear!
EVERYTHING about Experimental Elixir screams "oh shit, they didn't like the homunculus, they keep asking for potions instead! This book needs to be in the print ship in two months - somebody figure out some kind of potion-shaped class feature we can wedge in there quick!"
It's poorly thought out, poorly designed, poorly implemented, and just POOR. It is a singularly awful piece of class design that managed to single-handedly ruin the entire Alchemist subclass.
**** Experimental Elixir with the largest and shiniest of laboratory glassware.
Please do not contact or message me.
That’s why I added my houserule to it, the one you liked:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I love this idea. And then at levels 5, 9 and 15 where you gain a subclass feature, you could additionally pick one unknown result of your choice from the table and add it to your 'known recipes' list so that Lady Luck doesn't leave you with a list of 6 terribad elixir options.
To keep the 'mad scientist' aficionados happy, perhaps you only roll to learn what one of your 'unknown' potions does when it's consumed, not when it's concocted.
Because the other two subclasses are brilliant examples of how level 3 Artificer subclass features don't have to be random. And the Alchemist's feature doesn't have to be random either. The purpose of using a spell slot in those classes is to get more uses of the feature. The alchemist doesn't need to add "and to remove the 5/6 chance of not getting what you want" to that. The elixir not being random isn't going to adversely affect balance. So why have it be random?
Lip service to an adjective is in my opinion not a good enough reason because the feature doesn't HAVE to be called "Experimental Elixir" that's probably the easiest thing to change about it.
Seriously. Do you honestly believe the feature is better for being random? I legitimately want to know if you do. Does the random 1d6 make it more enjoyable for you?
Because the general consensus seems to be that it makes the feature worse. We might be overreacting as to just how much, but if people generally don't like the feature why insist on it existing?
You seem to be missing the point. I can't tell if its deliberate or not. For now I'm assuming it's not.
If randomness is to exist I want the randomness to be meaningful. I want that meaning backed up by satisfying mechanics. Not shallow bullshit. Not something logically inconsistent. If that means increasing the pool of outcomes so be it. The current system is shallow bullshit. Having to expend a spell slot to create a specific elixir instead of a random one makes sense from a gameplay perspective. From a roleplay perspective it's logically inconsistent.
Why is repeating the results of an experiment consistently more difficult than the initial experiment itself?
Here's my proposed system hopefully rephrased to be more understandable.
- You have a list of 6 known options for your Experimental Elixir.
- For your free uses of the elixir you can just choose which option you want.
- After a long rest you can choose to experiment by rolling on a larger table to produce an elixir you don't currently know how to make.
- After producing that elixir you can choose whether or not to replace one of your known options with that new elixir.
See? That's all I want.
In the current Experimental Elixir you "experiment" every day whether you want to or not. In this version you choose to experiment.
I'd even be fine with that list of 6 starting smaller and growing over time.
I've proposed something similar to this in another thread a while ago.
To be clear what I'd want is an expandable system with depth and a better representation for experimentation even if it includes randomness.
What I'd settle for is removing a once per day randomness that I feel serves no dang purpose because I find it less and less likely that WOTC will ever give us the former.
Fair enough.
Problem 1: the random elixir you roll for on long rest is never the one you want. Murphy's Law and the whimsical cruelty of the cosmos demand it.
Problem 2: Expending a spell slot of 2nd level or higher wastes the extra levels of the spell, as the elixir gained by blowing your magic for the day is the same whether you use a first, a second, a ninth, or a twentieth. Artificers do not begin to have enough spell slots to go around wasting what few they do have on underpowered elixir options.
Problem 3: The effects are not remotely powerful or impactful enough to warrant their randomized nature. Effects from the Wild Magic table range from comedic fluff to encounter-altering, possibly even character arc-altering. Most EE options are generally weaker than their nearest equivalent first-level spells.
Problem 4: Action economy prevents creating new elixirs from being viable in combat. It takes an action to create the elixir, an action to give the elixir to someone else, and yet a third action to then consume that elixir. That is three heckin' turns to cast a 0.75th or so level spell on an ally if you discover that against all possible odds, one of your 0.75trh-level liquid not-a-spells happens to be what the party needs in a fracas.
The feature is bad and it should feel bad. The mad-scientist tropes destroyed the Alchemist subclass and I will never not be infinitely salty about it. Or stop blaming the playerbase for completely, permanently ruining the excellent UA 2019 Alchemist for everyone who really loved it.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hence why i would change it to a bonus action and remove the randomness. Doing so would make it fairly easy to make and use one yourself in a single turn. I would also add that "you may use an action to consume a potion yourself and/or throw one to an ally within 30 feet, who can then spend a reaction to consume it"
Now that you bring up the spell level issue I would probably allow the creation of an additional potion per the level of spell spent and just toss out the max number of brewed potions entirely. I think freebies = to proficiency mod would also be better.