D&D 5E (2014) Why do Alchemists suck?

[Werebat]

Why, exactly, does the Alchemist class presented in ENsider suck?

I mean, specifically, why is it a steaming pile of poop that no one would ever choose to play for anything other than RP reasons?

Is it in any way the equal of, say, a plain old Evoker wizard?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Do not engage with this question, people.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why do Alchemists suck?

Uh....

...how else are they supposed to get solution into a pipette?

 

[Eubani]

OP first needs to define what makes the Alchemist so bad and convince us that is the case before any worthwhile discussion can take place. I am guessing how the issue was presented that a worthwhile conversation is not what is sort after.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, this seems needlessly hostile.

 

[Eubani]

From memory there was a revision due to certain parts being underwhelming, aside from this I didn't see anything terrible about the class.

 

[Morrus]

From memory there was a revision due to certain parts being underwhelming, aside from this I didn't see anything terrible about the class.

Yeah, an expansion which also included some errata.

 

[Uchawi]

I can not make a meaningful comment in reference to the OP, but classes like an alchemist, artificer, or even a rogue with poisons, have to be kept in check. Otherwise, they can just stock pile resources in their specialty to wreak havoc on whatever balance exists between other classes.

 

[Werebat]

"Seems hostile?" Me?

I ask because I rolled a gnome alchemist in a PF game that later switched systems to 5E. I retooled my gnome into an evoker (with the Sage background and Alchemist specialty -- for fluff, really, though we were calling him an "alchemist" and I described him as "throwing bombs" instead of casting fireballs, etc). I played Bizburn the evoker through a few levels before the 5E Alchemist class popped up on ENsider.

I was excited at first, then read it and thought it was crap compared to the plain old evoker.

I saw the errata, and thought, "Oh Lord, it WAS bad -- so bad it got errata within a month or two of publication!" But even with the errata the class just looked pretty weaksauce compared to the evoker wizard.

I was just wondering if I was missing something.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I saw the errata, and thought, "Oh Lord, it WAS bad -- so bad it got errata within a month or two of publication!"

Hmm, so I guess that means on the topic of errata it's damned if you do, damned if you don't - because either people complain that something is unclear and needs errata when it doesn't have any, or they take the existence of errata and misapply it as proof of bad design.