D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I am looking forward to making my Steel Defender start laying about with Faerie Fire or Heat Metal.

The changes in Tasha's even says that they can take "any other action" if you use your bonus action to command them, so the action used to activate SSI is a valid use of the Steel Defender's action.

 

[Umbran]

The changes in Tasha's even says that they can take "any other action" if you use your bonus action to command them, so the action used to activate SSI is a valid use of the Steel Defender's action.

Yep. Giving my Steel Defender some suitable somewhat-ranged facility has been on my list.

Of course, if I feel like giving my GM a conniption, in a couple levels I could have my Defender, a Homunculus, and a Tiny Servant all at once. I'd be a walking metal menagerie!

 

[JackalTornMoons]

Yep. Giving my Steel Defender some suitable somewhat-ranged facility has been on my list.

Of course, if I feel like giving my GM a conniption, in a couple levels I could have my Defender, a Homunculus, and a Tiny Servant all at once. I'd be a walking metal menagerie!

Upcast Tiny Servant to get 3 of them (and then have them throw magic stones every turn for a cool possible 3d6+15 damage )
You should have a wind instrument proficiency for using Pipes of Haunting.
You’re basically the robot pied piper.

 

[Umbran]

Upcast Tiny Servant to get 3 of them (and then have them throw magic stones every turn for a cool possible 3d6+15 damage )
You should have a wind instrument proficiency for using Pipes of Haunting.
You’re basically the robot pied piper.

The tune is obvious...

 

[tetrasodium]

Citation, or that's speculation. And, in any case, I'm not playing in AL. Sage Advice is advice, and UAs are not official rules - they are explicitly test content.

Let us step away from the Tiny Servant for the moment, because any Battlesmith could pass the item to their Steel Defender instead....

Now, note that the Artificer appeared in UA, the Eberron book, and then was revised for Tasha's. The Steel Defender and the SSI have appeared through all of this.... and when they revised it, they could easily have included this tidbit you claim "must" appear all over the place... but interestingly does not appear in the current class.

Thus, I don't find your arguments convincing. Your protestations notwithstanding, I am looking forward to making my Steel Defender start laying about with Faerie Fire or Heat Metal.

You may not play AL & the idea of that footnote not possibly establishing precedent for many GMs rather than resorting to an endless chain of one off calvinball style rulings lacking any sort of consistency might appeal to some but it provides a reason why a GM would rule that a creature is not always a just a full creature capable of concentration as you describe and the thread I've linked a few times from september 2019 predates the november 2019 release of rising. That thread is filled with people giving reasons why they would not allow a warlock to offload concentration to their familiar with a spell storing ring many of which also apply to the situation of a battlesmith & iron defender. It's not unreasonable to say that there are plenty of reasons why a GM would not provide an excessively permissive ruling that allows an artificer to offload concentration like that when there is nothing in the ssi homunculus or iron defender saying that was the design intent. The ssi & spell storing ring are not so different that the reasons give there would not be equally reasonable for the ssi & steel defender. If that is the design intent from wotc it at the very least needs "advice" like SA errata or even a tweet admitting the wording was off from intent sometime before an eventual artificer revision similar to the optional rules the other classes got in tashas.

I'm not saying this because I'm trying to convince you to run your game that way, I'm saying it because there is ample reasoning for why a GM would not allow it. If the ssi is tuned on the assumption it will be the norm it is worded in a way that does not accomplish or even give a player something to argue on why it should if the gm disagrees.... If offloading concentration is an intended perk of the ssi but no text even hints at that being intended is absolutely a problem for artificer that contributes to answering the question "does the artificer suck" just as much as how your gm handles crafting.

 

[Helldritch]

I'll be sure as a player to bring one of the newer DMGs with the updated printings. RAW FTW!

If you want to house rule it, then house rule it. Don't stick you head in the sand and pretend it never happened though, because if you house rule something in your head but hide it from your players by not telling anyone until it comes up - likely biting your player in the butt - that's not a cool move.

1) I don't hide nothing. Keep your accusations to yourself.
2) I don't have the newer one, and I am not going to buy an other one for the pleasure of it. I will keep mine as the sole DMG in authority in my games unless I would happen to be agreeing with the change from a logical perspective. The rule was clear from the beginning. No need to change it as logic was respected.
3) For some, you have to have the scroll already in hands. So now you have to have the scroll in hand... Check what would happen in my games.

The wizard Notsofasthand was carrying his scroll of counterspell in his hands. The big goblin Hitallthetime saw the scroll and knew that it was important that this thing got destroyed fast. Sneakily, Hitallthetime, got behind our poor Notsofasthand and snatched the scroll from his hands. Using the rest of his movement, Hitallthetime, put the scroll to torch by placing it in a pit fire, an already lit torch or simply tears it down and gobbles a part of it exactly as he was instructed by his master.

Or even this: The wizard Notsofasthand, who wants to be prepared to all eventualities, carries his scroll of featherfall just in case in his hands. Comes an invisible hidden kobold sorcer of no small fame going by the name Marksmankobie that recognize that the scroll might be something dangerous. Not taking any chance, our Kobold sorcer shoots the scrolls with a firebolt. Notsofasthand tries to protect the scroll instinctively, but even if the scrolls was a small thing and Notsofasthand provided a 3/4 cover, Maksmankobie hit the scroll with a critical and puff in flames goes the scroll...

So holding a scroll of "X" just in case is ripe for getting it destroyed.
Allowing this rule is opening the game for a potential abuse.
A scroll of Counterspell takes about one week to create and costs 500gp. In many games, downtime can extend from a few days, to a few years. With that amount of time, it is not impossible to see a wizard (or sorcer or whatever that can scribe scrolls and cast counterspell) have a dozen or so such scrolls at the ready (and even more than that if the DM is especially generous with money) Hell, the player could also buy these scrolls at the nearest mage's guild as such an item would be in ultra high demand!
The advantages of such a way to use scrolls is almost too much.
1) Have the scroll in hand along with your wand (focus).
2) Cast the counterspell without using a spell slot.
3) On your turn, free interaction, take a new scroll of counter spell.
4) Rinse and repeat for every possible caster that can do such a thing in the group. I have six players, and often, two of them can counter spell with their spell slots. Imagine if a free use of a scroll could be done this way. No lich, no evil wizard, no evil priest would ever be able to get a spell out... The principle of the casting BBEG is to forget if you play scroll usage this way.

I do not know what led to that modification, but it was not a thoroughly thought one and it was definitively not playtested. The potential abuse is staggering. Feel free to disagree. I know powergamers that would destroy campaigns if their DM would allow such possible scroll usage.

 

[Gammadoodler]

1) I don't hide nothing. Keep your accusations to yourself.
2) I don't have the newer one, and I am not going to buy an other one for the pleasure of it. I will keep mine as the sole DMG in authority in my games unless I would happen to be agreeing with the change from a logical perspective. The rule was clear from the beginning. No need to change it as logic was respected.
3) For some, you have to have the scroll already in hands. So now you have to have the scroll in hand... Check what would happen in my games.

The wizard Notsofasthand was carrying his scroll of counterspell in his hands. The big goblin Hitallthetime saw the scroll and knew that it was important that this thing got destroyed fast. Sneakily, Hitallthetime, got behind our poor Notsofasthand and snatched the scroll from his hands. Using the rest of his movement, Hitallthetime, put the scroll to torch by placing it in a pit fire, an already lit torch or simply tears it down and gobbles a part of it exactly as he was instructed by his master.

Or even this: The wizard Notsofasthand, who wants to be prepared to all eventualities, carries his scroll of featherfall just in case in his hands. Comes an invisible hidden kobold sorcer of no small fame going by the name Marksmankobie that recognize that the scroll might be something dangerous. Not taking any chance, our Kobold sorcer shoots the scrolls with a firebolt. Notsofasthand tries to protect the scroll instinctively, but even if the scrolls was a small thing and Notsofasthand provided a 3/4 cover, Maksmankobie hit the scroll with a critical and puff in flames goes the scroll...

So holding a scroll of "X" just in case is ripe for getting it destroyed.
Allowing this rule is opening the game for a potential abuse.
A scroll of Counterspell takes about one week to create and costs 500gp. In many games, downtime can extend from a few days, to a few years. With that amount of time, it is not impossible to see a wizard (or sorcer or whatever that can scribe scrolls and cast counterspell) have a dozen or so such scrolls at the ready (and even more than that if the DM is especially generous with money) Hell, the player could also buy these scrolls at the nearest mage's guild as such an item would be in ultra high demand!
The advantages of such a way to use scrolls is almost too much.
1) Have the scroll in hand along with your wand (focus).
2) Cast the counterspell without using a spell slot.
3) On your turn, free interaction, take a new scroll of counter spell.
4) Rinse and repeat for every possible caster that can do such a thing in the group. I have six players, and often, two of them can counter spell with their spell slots. Imagine if a free use of a scroll could be done this way. No lich, no evil wizard, no evil priest would ever be able to get a spell out... The principle of the casting BBEG is to forget if you play scroll usage this way.

I do not know what led to that modification, but it was not a thoroughly thought one and it was definitively not playtested. The potential abuse is staggering. Feel free to disagree. I know powergamers that would destroy campaigns if their DM would allow such possible scroll usage.

Seems like it'd be a "good for the goose good for the gander situation". Sure counterspell scroll attrition battles might not be the height of exciting gameplay, but it seems like it's no more abusable than normal counterspell cheese.

 

[Stoutstien]

1) I don't hide nothing. Keep your accusations to yourself.
2) I don't have the newer one, and I am not going to buy an other one for the pleasure of it. I will keep mine as the sole DMG in authority in my games unless I would happen to be agreeing with the change from a logical perspective. The rule was clear from the beginning. No need to change it as logic was respected.
3) For some, you have to have the scroll already in hands. So now you have to have the scroll in hand... Check what would happen in my games.

The wizard Notsofasthand was carrying his scroll of counterspell in his hands. The big goblin Hitallthetime saw the scroll and knew that it was important that this thing got destroyed fast. Sneakily, Hitallthetime, got behind our poor Notsofasthand and snatched the scroll from his hands. Using the rest of his movement, Hitallthetime, put the scroll to torch by placing it in a pit fire, an already lit torch or simply tears it down and gobbles a part of it exactly as he was instructed by his master.

Or even this: The wizard Notsofasthand, who wants to be prepared to all eventualities, carries his scroll of featherfall just in case in his hands. Comes an invisible hidden kobold sorcer of no small fame going by the name Marksmankobie that recognize that the scroll might be something dangerous. Not taking any chance, our Kobold sorcer shoots the scrolls with a firebolt. Notsofasthand tries to protect the scroll instinctively, but even if the scrolls was a small thing and Notsofasthand provided a 3/4 cover, Maksmankobie hit the scroll with a critical and puff in flames goes the scroll...

So holding a scroll of "X" just in case is ripe for getting it destroyed.
Allowing this rule is opening the game for a potential abuse.
A scroll of Counterspell takes about one week to create and costs 500gp. In many games, downtime can extend from a few days, to a few years. With that amount of time, it is not impossible to see a wizard (or sorcer or whatever that can scribe scrolls and cast counterspell) have a dozen or so such scrolls at the ready (and even more than that if the DM is especially generous with money) Hell, the player could also buy these scrolls at the nearest mage's guild as such an item would be in ultra high demand!
The advantages of such a way to use scrolls is almost too much.
1) Have the scroll in hand along with your wand (focus).
2) Cast the counterspell without using a spell slot.
3) On your turn, free interaction, take a new scroll of counter spell.
4) Rinse and repeat for every possible caster that can do such a thing in the group. I have six players, and often, two of them can counter spell with their spell slots. Imagine if a free use of a scroll could be done this way. No lich, no evil wizard, no evil priest would ever be able to get a spell out... The principle of the casting BBEG is to forget if you play scroll usage this way.

I do not know what led to that modification, but it was not a thoroughly thought one and it was definitively not playtested. The potential abuse is staggering. Feel free to disagree. I know powergamers that would destroy campaigns if their DM would allow such possible scroll usage.

Errtas have been part of TTRPGs since Chainmail. Part of the pain of stretching a fiction driven engine over a primarily mechanical game itvis practically impossible to pull off a perfect rule set ever so it's a constant process of small changes and adjustments to try to get it as close as possible. Don't like them? Well there's checkers. Those rules haven't changed.

Most of your examples of NPCs reacting to a spell scroll are either A) against the rules (can't target worn or carried objects) or B) strangely abusable. So all I have to do in your game to eat anyone's action is carry a role of paper? Because yea a scroll could be dangerous but the massive gut with an axe is obviously a decoy....

Don't like scrolls? Fine. Don't put them in as a part of your game setting. Are they broken? Not even on the list of top 100 abusable things on the edition. If scrolls break your game wait to you hear what planar binding can do.

 

[Helldritch]

Seems like it'd be a "good for the goose good for the gander situation". Sure counterspell scroll attrition battles might not be the height of exciting gameplay, but it seems like it's no more abusable than normal counterspell cheese.

At least counterspells using slots are using up potential spells that could be used for something else. Yes, you could do it with scrolls with other spells in it. But the counterspell scrolls can be saved if not needed. Not the slots.

Errtas have been part of TTRPGs since Chainmail. Part of the pain of stretching a fiction driven engine over a primarily mechanical game itvis practically impossible to pull off a perfect rule set ever so it's a constant process of small changes and adjustments to try to get it as close as possible. Don't like them? Well there's checkers. Those rules haven't changed.

Most of your examples of NPCs reacting to a spell scroll are either A) against the rules (can't target worn or carried objects) or B) strangely abusable. So all I have to do in your game to eat anyone's action is carry a role of paper? Because yea a scroll could be dangerous but the massive gut with an axe is obviously a decoy....

Don't like scrolls? Fine. Don't put them in as a part of your game setting. Are they broken? Not even on the list of top 100 abusable things on the edition. If scrolls break your game wait to you hear what planar binding can do.

You seem to take me for an imbecile that does not know the rules. Take that out of your mind. It is not because I do not agree with holy whoknows what at Wizards that I am not aware of other potential abuses. I have played quite a few campaigns in the high levels and I know of many abuses and denounced quite a few during playtests back when 5ed was called Next...

And...
Attacking carried objects is not against any rules in 5ed. That rests solely in the DM's hands. It is a judgment call that is perfectly legal as long as the target can be affected by the attack. The eldritch blast cantrip can only target creatures, not objects (and a good limitations as it could attack mulitple objects at once...) The adamantine weapons can and are used to destroy opponents weapons. Such weapons deals double damage against objects...(XGtE for adamantine weapons).

And as for ignoring other threat...
Opponents are not always alone neither are the players. While one opponent may harass the wizard/caster, an other one will distract the big axe weilding dude trying to be a decoy.
Not counting the immense threat represented by the gnome thief playing a lute...

But I do like scrolls. They are a good way to cope and prepare spells that might not necessarily be prepared otherwise. They are versatile and why would you prepare knock when you could have a scroll with the spell on it? Scrolls should be used this way and are meant to give an extra whoompf! when needed. They are not there to be a trump that will enable counterspelling. Scroll usage is at the minimum, a variant of the use object and I am sure that the intent was to explain the existence of bonus action and reaction scrolls. Yes, while holding the scroll, I would allow the spell to be cast. But be ready to see your precious scroll be targeted because there is no way for the enemy to know that what is on the scroll is not... Fireball, Cone of cold, Disentegrate, Meteor Swarm or a Summon Terminator T-1000 spell... No one with the flicker of a brain will take that chance.

 

[Guest User]

If scrolls break your game wait to you hear what planar binding can do.

Planar Binding is a tad more difficult to pull off, than finding a scroll of Shield of Faith or Sanctuary. While, using a scroll of either spell plus another non Cantrip spell cast will, in most circumstances not break a game...clever use of a Bonus Action Spell Scroll plus a Non Cantrip Cast can disrupt an encounter of two.

What has annoyed me personally about the errata differences between different printings of 5e books, is the fact that due to some issues with 5e book bindings, replacement is often necessary. This leads to situations where people literally have different rulesets at the same table.

My experience with past editions, is when everyone bought the same book at the same time, we could all use the same book for the life of the edition and thus had the same rules, as the bindings held up. A page at the front on new 5e printings advising of the errata would be a polite addition for WoTC to include.

The change to the verbiage for the Evoker subclass and to Pole Arm Master, have both come up as in play surprises, in games I have played in.