Artificer Alchemist - To Multiclass, or not to Multiclass?

[Chester]

Hello.

Let's get this out of the way first: Yes, I am well aware of how underwhelming Alchemist is from Tasha's Cauldron. "Don't be an alchemist" is not on the table right now.

I (briefly) played a gnome alchemist a few years back, and for a new Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign, I decided to bring him back. He was a fun character. I knew that he would not shine in combat, but as we have two new players, I wanted to give them a wide berth to stand out in combat.

Anyway, we just got to level 5. Seems like it gives the Alchemist a bump, but although I don't mind not standing out, I have found that the alchemist is less useful than I remember. He's a ton of fun to play (more on that in a minute), but I'm wondering if there are multiclassing options that can help improve things. I am aware that any other class will be nerfed given 5 levels of Alchemist, but I'm not looking to optimize, I'm looking to improve slightly.

Anyway:
Rock Gnome Alchemist
Level 5
Took Fey Touched earlier to bump Int and gain a bit more utility.

Party composition is me, an Elf paladin, Aasimar warlock, Goliath Bard, and Dwarf Ranger/Druid (Land).


Now that I have Alchemical Savant, I was thinking of multiclassing to something that I can re-flavor to go with the alchemist theme. Transmutation Wizard is an obvious choice. Also was looking into Elemental Druid. Not sure how viable those are, but I'm just looking for some more possibilities that give the character a bit more utility to support in combat without sacrificing the flavor.

Yes, "Just stick with straight alchemist because X" is a possibility.

Thanks in advance for the feedback!

[Mastikator]

IMO the best kind of artificer is one that does not multiclass. Even if the alchemist isn't good and doesn't get better the base artificer class is and does.

[Amnestic]

Personal vibes? Stick with alchemist. You get decent stuff at every level.

6th gets you another infusion and another free Experimental Elixir each day.
7th gets you Flash of Genius which is great for the support role you're after.
8th is an ASI, so we want that.
9th makes your EE's give solid temp HP and a bunch of free Lesser Restoration casts per day.
10th is another infusion and another attunement slot.
11th is Spell Storing Item - 8-10 free spell casts a day? Don't mind if we do! Even if you just toss Cure Wounds in there it's a huge bump in healing you've got, but things like Invisibility or Aid are great options too.
12th is an ASI, and probably the end of the campaign.

To me, the alch features at 3rd is the 'problem' - EE feels too weak and random compared to other artificer subclasses, but once you're past it you're sailing pretty. Since you're already past it and invested in it, you're good to go for the rest of the class.

[RogueJK]

Yeah, there's little incentive to leave Alchemist now. As mentioned, Artificers get useful things just about every new level.

If it's just that you're tired of Alchemist and want to completely switch to something else (without going to far as to change characters), I wouldn't do it in a primary spellcasting class because you'd be too far behind in spells known. But you could potentially switch into a martial class, provided you have a decent STR or DEX. Without knowing your exact stats, options could include Arcane Trickster Rogue, Eldritch Knight Fighter, or Psi Warrior Fighter. Hopefully you picked up Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, to tide you over until you eventually get Extra Attack, or until you gain some significant Sneak Attack. (If not, an EK/AT could grab it at Level 3.)

[Pex]

I disagree anyway Alchemist is terrible. It is the support subclass of Artificer and does a good job of it. 1d4 + 10 Healing Word is fantastic. You can use a 1st level spell slot to guarantee a flying potion. It's minute flying, but it does the job. Give someone +5 to a saving throw. Give someone a healing potion and temporary hit points. It's great.

In any case, Artificer is a class I believe shouldn't be multiclass. It's all about the infusions. You want those high level infusions, personal bias especially to craft magic items.

[stoutstien]

Alchemist is ok if your table isn't overly tight with following the hand economy rules and the weird rules where you can only give the EE to someone else is if they are knocked out.

[Amnestic]

I disagree anyway Alchemist is terrible.

I don't think it's terrible, but I do think it is the "worst" of the official subclasses. The Experimental Elixir options aren't strong enough individually to warrant being random with your first use(s), and the other subclass 3rd level features outstrip it - especially artillerist, whose protector cannon is often far stronger as a support platform. Rolling a '1' and getting "Cure Wounds" for the day feels less good than "cure wounds temporary hit points, in a 10ft aoe, every round, for a minute".

Healing is equivalent to or worse than a Cure Wounds spell (it's worse once you hit 5th, because the healing boost at 5th doesn't carry over to EE's).
Swiftness is just Longstrider in a bottle. That's fine, but it's no stronger than a spell.
Resilience might be the best, since it's a non-concentration AC boost for 10 minutes.
Boldness is 1/3rd of a Bless spell, which is not great. I guess its non-concentration aspect helps but it still takes an action to put up with a 1 minute duration.
Flight is only 10ft of speed a turn, which makes it hard to look at practically in most situations.
Transformation has niche applications, and for a lot of campaigns I've played in I'd go "okay, but why would I want that"

None of them stand out individually to go "wow, I want to roll this!". It sets a poor tone for the rest of the subclass which is...mostly fine, though I think the damage type restriction on their 5th level feature is stupid. What, I can make a necrotic potion stronger with Blight but I can't make a lightning potion strong with Shocking Grasp? Come on...

You also can't feed the elixir to someone else unless they're specifically incapacitated (though I expect most DMs to houserule otherwise). It takes an action to create a new one and an action to administer, meaning if you're in the heat of battle when you might want to use Healing elixir, it takes two turns to do. "Just use Healing Word instead" isn't good, because...well, I want to use my alchemist elixirs, that's why I'm an alchemist!

So yeah, it's not bad or terrible. But the first feature they get has so many caveats and problems with it that it makes it hard to sell, even as a support option, over the other subclasses. I like its 9th and 15th level features just fine, but when most games may not get that high...eh.

I'm playing an alchemist right now (3rd level, for a campaign expected to max out at 9th), and so far the only aspect of her I'd consider better than other subclasses is getting healing word on her spell list. That's it. Well, and the raw flavour of throwing potions around, I guess, but that doesn't help me in my support role.

[RogueJK]

In thinking about this some more, dipping 1 level into Peace Cleric is worth considering for a support-focuses Alchemist Artificer, provided you have at least a 13 WIS. Gaining Guidance, Bless, and Emboldening Bond is potentially worth being a level behind as an Artificer. And Bless/Emboldening Bond not only stack with each other, but stack with the Boldness Elixer too. Plus, Emboldening Bond scales with Proficiency, not Cleric level.

It also frees up Healing Word to be taken as a Cleric spell, letting you prepare a different Artificer spell in its place. (The difference between 1d4+1/2 and 1d4+8/10 is immaterial, especially for how Healing Word is used to emergency yo-yo someone back from 0 HP for a round or so. Either way, HW isn't going to give someone enough HP to withstand another significant instance of damage.)



So yeah, it's not bad or terrible. But the first feature they get has so many caveats and problems with it that it makes it hard to sell, even as a support option, over the other subclasses.

Agreed. But it can get a nice bump in usefulness with just a few comparatively minor tweaks:
A) Make drinking/administering an Elixer a Bonus Action, and consider allowing it to be administered to any willing creature (not just Incapacitated)
B) Allow them to generate Proficiency Bonus number of elixers per day for free, and let them pick the effect(s) (no randomness)
C) Allow them to expend a spell slot to generate Spell Level number of elixers. Rather than 1x per slot, it'd be 1x for a 1st level slot, 2x for a 2nd, 3x for a 3rd, etc. So that by the time they're into Tiers 2 and 3, they're not having to expend every single one of their 1st level slots just to allow the party to fly for 10 minutes, or breathe water for an hour.

[Keravath]

Artificer offers a lot. In particular, for a campaign going to higher levels and perhaps low on magic items, the options at 6, 10 and 14 can be awesome. The level 20 capstone if you go that far is also very good, amounting to +6 on all saving throws.

Artificers also already have access to the guidance cantrip so it removes one of the small reasons to multiclass into cleric.

However, stats wise, and party composition wise, the logical multiclass is a wizard of some sort. The bard could cover the spellcasting needs, particularly crowd control, but a wizard has a spell book and quite a variety of spells. The biggest issue with pivoting to wizard is that the spell level will be lagging the rest of the party, the artificier wizard would have 3rd level spells at 10th level while the bard has 5th level spells at 9th. On the other hand, if you think it would be fun from a role playing perspective, then go for it.

At this point, I'd probably lean towards staying with artificer but if you aren't enjoying it then consider asking the DM if you can switch to artillerist, battlesmith or armorer - the battlesmith is ok, especially with a repeating shot infusion on a heavy crossbow, though that will usually end up with the character being about equal to a warlock with agonizing blast.

[Chester]

Well, everyone, looks like the overwhelming consensus is that I'll be a-ok without changing anything. Thanks for the insight!

[Dork_Forge]

I vote stay just Alchemist, Artificer's progression is arguably the most solid in the game. If anything, and depending on how you're playing them, a single level of Life Cleric to enhance healing is the only thing I'd really recommend.

[Monster Manuel]

I haven't done a lot of theorycrafting with this, and it almost certainly doesn't outweigh just going straight Artificer, but I'm thinking about a multiclass dip into Warlock. You can get up to some coffee-lock type shenanigans to have a larger stockpile of elixirs on-hand.

2 levels of Walock get you 2 spell slots that refresh after a short rest. Your elixirs last until drunk, or until your next LONG rest, not short. So, if you have the time, you get the 1 (2 or 3 at higher levels) random elixirs, and then you can pump out 2 more specific elixirs, rest an hour, and do it again. Based on how much downtime you have before you start out the day, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have 7 or more elixirs to hand out to your crew, which will last until you all take a long rest.

The Warlock slots are a separate pool from your Artificer slots, so you are delaying your artificer spell progression by 2 levels, but you don't have to dip into your artificer slots to generate elixirs, so maybe kind of a wash? Genie patron is a good one to dip, because a number of the abilities they get tie to proficiency bonus, not warlock level.

Is a short-rest refreshable stock of extra elixirs and 2 Invocations worth delaying Artificer progression by 2? Not sure it is. But it's an interesting synergy specifically with the alchemist artificer.

[Dork_Forge]

I haven't done a lot of theorycrafting with this, and it almost certainly doesn't outweigh just going straight Artificer, but I'm thinking about a multiclass dip into Warlock. You can get up to some coffee-lock type shenanigans to have a larger stockpile of elixirs on-hand.

2 levels of Walock get you 2 spell slots that refresh after a short rest. Your elixirs last until drunk, or until your next LONG rest, not short. So, if you have the time, you get the 1 (2 or 3 at higher levels) random elixirs, and then you can pump out 2 more specific elixirs, rest an hour, and do it again. Based on how much downtime you have before you start out the day, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have 7 or more elixirs to hand out to your crew, which will last until you all take a long rest.

The Warlock slots are a separate pool from your Artificer slots, so you are delaying your artificer spell progression by 2 levels, but you don't have to dip into your artificer slots to generate elixirs, so maybe kind of a wash? Genie patron is a good one to dip, because a number of the abilities they get tie to proficiency bonus, not warlock level.

Is a short-rest refreshable stock of extra elixirs and 2 Invocations worth delaying Artificer progression by 2? Not sure it is. But it's an interesting synergy specifically with the alchemist artificer.

You can achieve a smoother version of this, though with less cheese potential, with a Wizard dip and the spell-refueling ring infusion.

Not sure it'd be worth dipping out of Artificer though. You get 2 Elixirs starting at 6th level, along with access to the ring infusion. So you'd need to SR twice a day with the first Warlock level to just break even on Elixirs vs a straight class, and then have to SR 2+ a day with 2 levels of Warlock to make the schtick worth it.

[RogueJK]

Artificers also already have access to the guidance cantrip so it removes one of the small reasons to multiclass into cleric.

Artificers get very few cantrips, especially at lower levels... They only know 2 cantrips for the entire first half of their career.

And much like I described above with Healing Word, even if they already took Guidance as an Artificer cantrip, shifting Guidance to a Cleric cantrip frees you up to swap in a different Artificer cantrip at your next Artificer level up.

Plus gaining 3x Cleric cantrips in general would more than double your number of cantrips, going from 2 to 5. (Although without a high WIS you're effectively limited to picking from Guidance, Mending, Light, and Thaumaturgy.)

So it's still worth considering dipping Cleric, even if it means potentially doubling up on Guidance as both a Cleric and Artificer cantrip for 1 level until you can switch to a different Artificer cantrip.

[Dork_Forge]

It also frees up Healing Word to be taken as a Cleric spell, letting you prepare a different Artificer spell in its place. (The difference between 1d4+1/2 and 1d4+8/10 is immaterial, especially for how Healing Word is used to emergency yo-yo someone back from 0 HP for a round or so. Either way, HW isn't going to give someone enough HP to withstand another significant instance of damage.)


That's a pretty massive difference, I'm curious how big a healing bump makes it move the needle to you? Just from that comment I don't think any healing features would really do it for you.

[Amnestic]

Healing Word as an alchemist spell doesn't cost an Artificer preparation slot, since it's a subclass spell.

Starting at 3rd level, you always have certain spells prepared after you reach particular levels in this class, as shown in the Alchemist Spells table. These spells count as artificer spells for you, but they don’t count against the number of artificer spells you prepare.

Preparing it as a cleric would, instead, be a waste of a cleric slot (unless your Domain also granted it for free, if there is one that does, I don't remember).

[RogueJK]

Good catch. But the point stands about Bless, Emboldening Bond, and even Guidance.

[RogueJK]

That's a pretty massive difference, I'm curious how big a healing bump makes it move the needle to you? Just from that comment I don't think any healing features would really do it for you.

It goes back to the wonkiness and inefficiency of healing in 5E.

In combat, there's little point in spending a bunch of actions and resources to top up non-unconscious party members with a few HP at a time. They're just as combat-effective with 1 HP as with 100 HP. So really all you need to do is heal them a little if they drop to 0 HP. Luckily, Healing Word is one of the few ways to do that which doesn't eat your entire Action.

But if an ally is at 0 HP, it doesn't really matter if you Healing Word them for 2 HP (min of 1d4+1) or 14 HP (max of 1d4+10). Because past the first few levels in Tier 1, if that ally is facing taking more damage again the following round, they are almost certainly going to be soaking up more than 14 HP in damage. Thus putting them back down to 0 HP again regardless of whether you healed them for 2 HP or 14 HP. So a couple of HP is all that's needed to get them back to conscious and hopefully be able to act for one more turn before they get knocked unconscious again. Then rinse and repeat. Hence the oft-maligned "yo-yo" pattern of in-combat healing in 5E: up-down-up-down-up.

Now, outside of combat, there are a number of significantly more effective and efficient ways to heal someone than Healing Word. So again, the different between HW healing 2 HP or 14 HP is not really a factor even outside of combat, because you and your party are almost certainly going to be using some other option for more substantial out of combat healing, besides burning all your limited spell slots on repeated Healing Words. Such as having the Druid cast Aura of Vitality to heal 20d6 with 1x 3rd level slot, or taking a Short Rest.

[Dork_Forge]

It goes back to the wonkiness and inefficiency of healing in 5E.

Ahh, it's the 'healing in combat = bad' trope, I see.


In combat, there's little point in spending a bunch of actions and resources to top up non-unconscious party members with a few HP at a time. They're just as combat-effective with 1 HP as with 100 HP. So really all you need to do is heal them a little if they drop to 0 HP. Luckily, Healing Word is one of the few ways to do that which doesn't eat your entire Action.

The whole yo-yo thing doesn't really hold up for a lot of games, but it's certainly a problem at some tables. Some issues with the 'just pick them up' mentality:

- Initiative order matters with this, a lot. Going down can mean losing an entire turn, nevermind that time meaning there's also less threats on the board for the monsters to focus on, if they don't feel like a coup de grace.
- Roleplay matters to some people, just letting your allies and friends get to the point where they are actually dying before healing is mechanics-first thinking.
- Going down can mean the loss of special features and concentration effects.
- The lower your HP the more likely you could get insta-killed.


But if an ally is at 0 HP, it doesn't really matter if you Healing Word them for 2 HP (min of 1d4+1) or 14 HP (max of 1d4+10). Because past the first few levels in Tier 1, if that ally is facing taking more damage again the following round, they are almost certainly going to be soaking up more than 14 HP in damage. Thus putting them back down to 0 HP again regardless of whether you healed them for 2 HP or 14 HP. So a couple of HP is all that's needed to get them back to conscious and hopefully be able to act for one more turn before they get knocked unconscious again. Then rinse and repeat. Hence the oft-maligned "yo-yo" pattern of in-combat healing in 5E: up-down-up-down-up.

I'm very confused why you expect a PC to be soaking more than 14HP after level 3? Damage reduction, missed hits, and 5e's design to use lower CR monsters throughout progression mean that doesn't really hold up.

But let's take a look at a level 5, where the ability comes online, comparison for an Alchemist with a +4 Int vs one using it as a Cleric spell with a +1 Wis (13 in Wis only because they already have two secondary stats they want +2s in ideally).

Alch HW: 1d4+8 = 12.5 avg.
Alch/Clr HW: 1d4+1 = 3.5 avg.

That's a difference of 9. The average HP of an adventurer at 5th is 33HP (+1 Con, d8 HD). That means the difference between HW is equivalent to 27.3% of the average PC's total health. Nevermind the fact that the boosted version also has a massively higher floor, making it more reliable.

So let's take a look at some encounters a level 5 might face (I skimmed some adventures for these examples):

Flesh Golem (CoS) Two slam attacks avg. 13 each, solo monster

Tloques-Popolocas (shrine of tamoachan) Two claw attacks at 12

Bugbears (DotMM) single attack for 11

Given that any given attack might miss, that monsters can attack different party members etc. and that the average damage of a monsters attack I'm seeing (and this is from beefier monsters, goblins and so on still appear) is lower than the avg heal of Alch HW, it seems pretty likely that a PC raised up by the boosted HW would have a greater chance of surviving than one that got the lower heal.

Nevermind that the one with the larger heal has less HP to make up for later on, saving PC/party resources, you'd have to spend 2 HD, or roll very high on one, to make up that difference alone on a SR.


Now, outside of combat, there are a number of significantly more effective and efficient ways to heal someone than Healing Word. So again, the different between HW healing 2 HP or 14 HP is not really a factor even outside of combat, because you and your party are almost certainly going to be using some other option for more substantial out of combat healing, besides burning all your limited spell slots on repeated Healing Words. Such as having the Druid cast Aura of Vitality to heal 20d6 with 1x 3rd level slot, or taking a Short Rest.

Healing Word isn't really a good OOC heal, but some parties just have to use what they have. I think you're overstating the OOC heals a bit, SR require a resource and aren't always suitable, whilst Aura of Vitality is a very exclusive spell unless the Tasha's spell lists are in play (from experience of a Druid with the Tasha's list, I wouldn't allow it again for them).



I don't really expect any of this to change your mind. Some players are firmly rooted in the 'proactive healing = pointless' camp, I'm sure there are plenty of tables where that makes sense. It's just not to my taste and not, in my view or experience, an objective fact of 5e as a system.

[RogueJK]

Alch HW: 1d4+8 = 12.5 avg.
Alch/Clr HW: 1d4+1 = 3.5 avg.

That's a difference of 9. The average HP of an adventurer at 5th is 33HP (+1 Con, d8 HD). That means the difference between HW is equivalent to 27.3% of the average PC's total health. Nevermind the fact that the boosted version also has a massively higher floor, making it more reliable.

So let's take a look at some encounters a level 5 might face (I skimmed some adventures for these examples):

Flesh Golem (CoS) Two slam attacks avg. 13 each, solo monster

Tloques-Popolocas (shrine of tamoachan) Two claw attacks at 12

Bugbears (DotMM) single attack for 11

Given that any given attack might miss, that monsters can attack different party members etc. and that the average damage of a monsters attack I'm seeing (and this is from beefier monsters, goblins and so on still appear) is lower than the avg heal of Alch HW, it seems pretty likely that a PC raised up by the boosted HW would have a greater chance of surviving than one that got the lower heal.

Except your math is off a bit. The average of 1d4+8 is 10.5, not 12.5.

So again, considering if any of those three example monsters you found land any one hit they're doing more than 10.5 damage on average (11-13), it doesn't really matter much if you had healed that downed PC for 3.5 or 10.5... They're still almost certainly going down again.

And sure, attacks can miss. But if the attacks all miss, then it still doesn't matter if they got 3.5 or 10.5 HP... They're still standing regardless.

Damage reduction is a better argument, with something like a Raging Barbarian or Uncanny Dodging Rogue being capable of stretching that extra 7 HP twice as far. That could be enough to make a difference in those cases.

However, you're also cherry-picking a best-case example here, with the Alchemist's Healing Word at the peak of its relative benefit when Alchemical Savant first comes online at Level 5. The thing is, it doesn't really scale past Level 5, except perhaps from +8 to +10 whenever you max out INT. But that's a mere +2 additional HP over the rest of the 15 levels in a PC's career. Whereas enemy damage scales a LOT more than +2 damage for the next 15 levels... So even if the Alchemist's boosted HW could in theory allow you to barely soak the occasional borderline hit right at exactly Level 5, that becomes irrelevant within the next level and onward, and we're back to it not mattering even in theoretical edge cases whether you pop your buddy back up with 2 or 14 HP, as any threats you're facing in a combat are going to be capable of doing 14+ damage to a PC in a round.

[Dork_Forge]

Except your math is off a bit. The average of 1d4+8 is 10.5, not 12.5.

Whoops that one is my bad, I was originally doing it at +5 Int before scaling it back, editing is important.


So again, considering if any of those three example monsters you found land any one hit they're doing more than 10.5 damage on average (11-13), it doesn't really matter much if you had healed that downed PC for 3.5 or 10.5... They're still almost certainly going down again.

The difference still matters since minimum damage for them is still higher than the average of the dip's HW, whereas there's still a decent chance of getting hit and having enough HP to survive otherwise. Or just a monster that has a lower average damage, like the goblins that fight alongside the bugbear in the module that one came from. The specific example didn't work out that well because of the sloppy mix up, but the point is still very much intact imo.


And sure, attacks can miss. But if the attacks all miss, then it still doesn't matter if they got 3.5 or 10.5 HP... They're still standing regardless.

Missing was more about not getting hit multiple times, like multiattack or multiple monsters. The chance of the dip's HW surviving a single hit to make it to the misses is a lot slimmer.


Damage reduction is a better argument, with something like a Raging Barbarian or Uncanny Dodging Rogue being capable of stretching that extra 7 HP twice as far. That could be enough to make a difference in those cases.

And temp HP and self heals, at this point in the game we have three different subclasses that are at least partially defined by handing out temp HP to the party.


However, you're also cherry-picking a best-case example here, with the Alchemist's Healing Word at the peak of its relative benefit when Alchemical Savant first comes online at Level 5.

I'm not cherry picking anything, the thread's OP is 5th level, which is also the tier break where the feature comes online.


The thing is, it doesn't really scale past Level 5, except perhaps from +8 to +10 whenever you max out INT. But that's a mere +2 additional HP over the rest of the 15 levels in a PC's career. Whereas enemy damage scales a LOT more than +2 damage for the next 15 levels... So even if the Alchemist's boosted HW could in theory allow you to barely soak the occasional borderline hit right at exactly Level 5, that becomes irrelevant within the next level and onward, and we're back to it not mattering even in theoretical edge cases whether you pop your buddy back up with 2 or 14 HP, as any threats you're facing in a combat are going to be capable of doing 14+ damage to a PC in a round.

Technically the game goes 15 levels beyond 5th. Realistically, those levels are an increasing minority in play. That's a pretty wide-spread and accepted fact that has it's root in a lot of reasons: campaign fatigue, poor game support of higher levels, players preferring simpler characters, games being more liekly to fall apart the longer they go on etc. etc. Pointing to a bunch of levels that most people won't play often, if at all, is not a compelling argument.

And again, the inherent design of 5e is to be able fight lower CR creatures at any level, nevermind status damage or environmental damage. Damage taken below 14 in a round doesn't magically stop existing past a certain level.

And none of that changes the fact that it's a worse heal to do it via the Cleric dip. It just is. You can argue how much that matters in practice, and we clearly disagree on that, but you're massively downgrading the effectiveness of a spell for no tangible benefit (if you could even unprepare HW as an Alchemist for this to be relevant).

But I'll end this on an anecdote: One of my tables is currently 15th level, a phat 15 with a lot of boons, magic items etc.

Healing Word is a regularly used spell in that game, both by the Bard and whoever has the first aid kit they turned their Ring of Spell storing into. It's been used to bring people up from 0, it's been used to top off HP (Bard has 2 Warlock levels), it's been used in combat as a proactive heal where it has successfully allowed a PC/sidekick to survive a hit. That party would all fall head over heels for a more powerful version of that spell.

Healing in 5e doesn't suck, some people just write it off or have MMO-level expectations of what it should do.

[Leon]

Well, everyone, looks like the overwhelming consensus is that I'll be a-ok without changing anything. Thanks for the insight!

Overall its best to play what YOU think is best for the character you have at hand, but if playing by consensus of what a random selection of people on a forum works for you then hopefully you can keep on enjoying it.