D&D 5E Why do Alchemists suck?

(not familiar with swashbuckler's panache - is this a feat?)

Mass suggestion, geas are spells no? it's X per day. Isn't inspiring leader is a feat (and thus class independent).

Anyway, if you think it's easy to balance an alchemist on logistics, so that its magical power is roughly equivalent to other classes, I'm all ears. Seriously, I mean it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

(not familiar with swashbuckler's panache - is this a feat?)

Mass suggestion, geas are spells no? it's X per day. Isn't inspiring leader is a feat (and thus class independent).

Anyway, if you think it's easy to balance an alchemist on logistics, so that its magical power is roughly equivalent to other classes, I'm all ears. Seriously, I mean it.

Panache is an at-will ability for Swashbucklers (Rogue subclass) acquired at 9th level. Aside from its combat uses, it also works as an at-will Charm ability (IIRC it's a Persuasion check contested by the target's Wisdom, possibly Wisdom (Insight)) on non-hostile creatures. It lasts for up to a minute, or more if you renew it of course.

Mass Suggestion and Geas last for weeks, months, or years, so the limiting factor is unlikely to be spell slots--you're going to be limited by available opportunities, i.e. number of potential minions. Also, you probably have to pay them to keep them on your side, so you're probably gold-limited on the maintenance side as well as the acquisition side.

Inspiring Leader is a feat, and thus a class feature which is available to any class--and so what? The point is to show that 5E doesn't really rely on X/day balance (which was done already in the Rodney Thompson quote--these other things are just illustrations for the sake of discussion). If Inspiring Leader, instead of being a feat, were an ability that Valor Bards (only) acquired at 8th level instead of an ASI, would that change the value of the precedent?

RE: "if you think it's easy to balance an alchemist on logistics, so that its magical power is roughly equivalent to other classes", my point is that in 5E, that question doesn't make sense. There is no such balance requirement. I don't think alchemy should be a class in the first place--it should be an activity--but if you did make an alchemist class I'd just say "you get to do alchemy cheaper and faster than other classes, and you learn various recipes as you advance", and then I'd throw in "you accumulate X gp in alchemical substances per month during downtime activities due to your hobbies and offscreen activities." It winds up being balanced differently than other classes (X/month freebies) but that's part of the theme of the class: you're a manufacturer. Like a wizard, your strength lies in preparation, not improvisation.

If I made X = 100 gp/level, that would imply that you get 10 free doses of drow poison per month at 20th level. Since each dose (in my game) goes bad about six weeks after opening it, or six months in vacuum, that means you'd have a steady state of 60 free vacuum-sealed doses without spending any additional treasure. Or you could have one to three doses of synthetic purple worm venom, or nigh-unlimited quantities of regular flaming oil, or some other substance based on specific recipes you'd researched such as Potions of Invulnerability or Extra-Healing, although the latter requires other ingredients in addition to the gp supplies. (Troll mucus or vampire blood.) So again, you're being balanced on some other basis: X/vampire, not X/day.
 
Last edited:

It sacrifices A LOT of damage -- for what utility?

The tradeoff seemed pretty unimpressive. Especially when you consider the utility that is sacrificed in losing so many wizard spells.

Ah, right there! You're focus is on how much damage you can deal. THAT'S why you think the alchemist sucks. You've picked the wrong tool for the job....
 

Ah, right there! You're focus is on how much damage you can deal. THAT'S why you think the alchemist sucks. You've picked the wrong tool for the job....

So your contention is that the DESTRUCTION alchemist is NOT supposed to be a damage dealing class?

And, apparently, that evokers can do nothing other than do damage with their high level spells.

I see.
 

Ah, right there! You're focus is on how much damage you can deal. THAT'S why you think the alchemist sucks. You've picked the wrong tool for the job....

No, it isn't. "For what utility?" he asked. The answer, unfortunately, is that nothing in the article Zardnaar quoted actually provides utility competitive with an Evoker.

In decision theory, this is called a dominated choice. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_dominance) Except for Philosopher's Stone and the intangible benefits of "flavor", a bomb-throwing Alchemist is worse than Evoker is every way that matters: survivability, DPR, utility, endurance.

If you can think of a way that it's not worse, please point it out. That's what Ron (werebat) started this thread for.

Edit: okay, I take part of it back. The Emperor Bomb ability at 14th level actually yields pretty good DPR, better than the Evoker's Overchannel, once per short rest. If you are dying to throw 18d8 (81) bombs once per short rest, you could do worse than the 14th-level Alchemist. Of course, you could also play a Fighter 2/Evoker 12 and throw an Action Surged pair of Fireballs, or 119 HP worth of Action Surged Magic Missiles. But at least once per short rest, the Destruction Alchemist is not garbage.

Edit 2: an interesting modification to Alchemist would be to say "you can cast any spell on the Alchemist spell list as a ritual, using your alchemical components." It would give them a utility niche.
 
Last edited:



The base class from En5ider #81 is definitely a disappointment. Adding in the errata from En5ider #87 (especially gaining Extra Attack), and using some of the subclasses from that document make for a much better class. A mutation alchemist can drink a concoction that mimics barbarian rage, for example, and he can prepare 1 of those concotions per long rest or day of downtime. There's a slight penalty to drinking more than 1 per long rest, but it's minor (and one of the generic discoveries makes it even less of a drawback).

I tend to believe that making the class a half-caster instead of a full-caster doomed it from the start, but it is salvagable with some good build choices.
 

So making the Alchemist a full caster and widening the choice of alchemy items preparable would bring it up to snuff then?
 
Last edited:

So making the Alchemist a full cast and widening the choice of alchemy items preparable would bring it up to snuff then?
Yea, I think so, especially if it's spell list is somewhat differentiated from a wizard's.
 

Remove ads

Top