What does the Artificer, Seeker and Runepriest need?

[Vael]

As the classes that are pointed to for not having much support, I'm curious what can be done with them to bring them up to par. Obviously, more stuff: feats and powers, maybe new build options and paragon paths.

But, specifically, when you are building an Artificer, Runepriest or Seeker, what's missing? What kinds of powers would you add? What are their weaknesses that need shoring up?

My thoughts:

Artificers need some of their 3.5 versatility back. I want infusions that are longer lasting (especially since the Sentinel got day-long buffs), and more versatile. The Warrior Forge article was slightly disappointing to me, because his daily armor enchants were limited to specific elements until only the highest level.

Runepriests, to be honest, seem somewhat complete, IMO. While you could add more Runic feats, they don't do much for me. And their powers are all quite versatile, so I don't think they need much more in the need of powers. These guys are kinda niche.

Seekers need more area of effect powers, and more terrain altering powers. I quite like dailies like Fungal Bloom, I want some more of that. Also, they need to get some nastier conditions, their control is a little soft. And, since they match stat-wise and powersource-wise with Druids, I'd like a Druid/Seeker paragon path.

 

[doctorhook]

My smarmy answer: they need an Oxford comma.

EDIT: Also, in this case the correct verb is "do" rather than "does". [/grammar nazi]

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I do not know the artificer well, but they seem to me to be a very cautious class, like a lot of the PHBI classes, and not like a PHBII class, which are more ambitious.

Yes, longer buffs would be good, or even being able to bump a weapon or armor up a plus for an encounter (or even a day) would be nice. They could also use a bunch of rituals to give them more options. Rituals is what they need the most. Rituals would fit the artificer out-of-combat feel I have always gotten from them.

Runepriests I know even less. Overall, I think they are ok, but more options would be good. I think they are one of the least likely to get help, though.

As for Seekers, yes, they need a lot more control. Especially the ability to change terrain or move some of their terrain effects. They need to take some of the druid's stuff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

IMO:

The Artificer needs a build that feels like they're creating and modifying equipment, not just "attack + buff" stuff and "summon" stuff.

The Runepriest and the Seeker need to become a Cleric build and a Ranger build.

And then we're done.

 

[Chronosome]

Hmm... This thread makes me wonder if one could just tweak some druid controller powers and give them to the seeker (and vice-versa, I suppose). Change their ranges to "weapon", etc... I'm going to poke around, see what can be done.

 

[Kinneus]

Every time I try to make an Artificer, I'm always forced to ask myself: "Wait. Why don't I just make it a Hybrid Swordmage/Artificer?" You lose out on some healing potential (and this gets worse past level 16... whereas every other flavor of Leader gets an extra use of their heal, you're still stuck with one. Exactly one. Forever).

But the Swordmage/Artificer can buff just as good as a regular Artificer, since it's all about power selection. And if there isn't anything you like for the Artificer at that level, you can just switch over to the Swordmage, who has gotten plenty of support. They blend seamlessly together... doesn't even hurt the flavor of the class to pick up some Swordmage powers.

So that's my work-around solution. Mostly, though, Artificers just need more options. Some feats to fix their implement/weapon juggling might be nice.

 

[Aulirophile]

Artficer: Few more good powers, some feat support, a reason to not hybrid, racial support, fixing of the MID issue (fixing of every class with a MID issue would be good while we're at it).

Seeker: hahahahahahahaha. No really, Seekers basically need a redesign from the ground up to be even remotely comparable to other controllers.

Runepriest: More powers, real feats, some way of boosting healing because they are fairly weak in this department, better PPs.

 

[Aegeri]

The artificer actually needs core class features changes, to reflect the changes in the rules. For example daily power milestones are now completely irrelevant in 4E with the release of essentials. After a good update to class features, they could really use some more paragon paths and powers to round them out somewhat.

Runepriests and Seekers just need to get actual support. Runepriests desperately need new options - just a bit to push them over the line somewhat. Seekers need to actually get some half decent control powers.

Really they just need the support all the other classes seem to get.

 

[kaomera]

I may not be the best person to ask, as I think there's probably a lot of players who can get a lot of fun out of these classes without this drastic an overhaul, but for me:

Artificer: Would probably require an overhaul of the way that magic items work in 4e. If not that then an overhaul of the concept of the artificer. In any case I think the concept needs some refining, and I'm not really that much of a fan of the way many of the powers end up working. 4e decided that doing pretty much anything without also attacking was boring, and that leads to powers that are overly complicated / fiddly even before you have to track multiple bonuses from different powers / feats / etc. and how they stack. Something much more straightforward, that doesn't punish the other players because you're playing an artificer, would be nice, IMO.

Seeker: Let's start with a new name. The concept of a primal, weapon-using controller is kinda neat, but let's actually give the class something unique. Oh, and if you actually wanted to do something with the class, overshadowing it with a better (ok, IMO) version in your next product seems kind of counter-productive...

Runepriest: Actually the concept I was most interested in out of the PHB3 classes, but to make it work you'd have to:

* Make it not a cleric: It would be nice to start by ditching healing word. I know that's not likely, but aside from healing infusion I really hate how leaders get saddled with healing. Ideally you'd find some other way to address the issue, but more likely we're stuck with rune of mending. In that case you'd have to at least do something more interesting with it. Overall, though, the class just needs something significant that really sets it apart.

* Fix rune states: Rune states need to be more significant IMO, but at the same time you need to avoid the problem of leaders forcing the other PCs to play their game. Ideally going into or changing a rune state should be a big deal, the current always-on version is just fiddly. I would hope that this would have the added effect that the rest of the group would be more interested / excited by what you where doing, making tracking issues less significant.

* Stop being so fiddly!: Runic artistry, I am looking at you! Also, rune states! Too much to keep track of, especially for the rest of the party and the DM. OK, I get that this is actually really, really awesome for some players, who want a more complex character. But then that player needs to be able to keep track of the effects in a reasonable manner. It's unfortunate that adding a "requirement: must not make the game unfun for everyone else" to some classes, etc. isn't really a viable option...

 

[Aulirophile]

? Um, the Artificer class feature works fine with the new restrictions. It doesn't give an additional daily item usage, it recharges the daily on an item. Since you're only allowed to own one of a given item if it has a daily power, the change was a net buff to Artificers. Or you can give them a free +2 to hit as an interrupt.

Arcane Rejuvenation got a huge buff. You can now generate temp HP each time an ally uses an item daily power, and there is no limit to how many they can use. The issue is this requires party-wide abuse to be effective.