D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Paul Farquhar]

We can assume the normal casting rules apply but based on the responses on clarification on how this feature works they are adamantly stating that the SSI is not inherently a magical item nor is it spell casting.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. It says it duplicates the effect of the spell, and does not provide an alternative formula for calculating the spell attack bonus or save DC.

It would be nice if it was worded differently but based on what is written no prof bonus.

No, it doesn't say anything to imply that. It replaces the casting ability modifier, not the formula for calculating the spell attack bonus or save DC.

 

[Stoutstien]

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. It says it duplicates the effect of the spell, and does not provide an alternative formula for calculating the spell attack bonus or save DC.

No, it doesn't say anything to imply that. It replaces the casting ability modifier, not the formula for calculating the spell attack bonus or save DC.

Spell attacks and save DCs are not part of spell effects. The spell's effects are listed under the spell descriptions.

Furthermore the users proficiency wouldn't be added regardless because they aren't producing the effects in question. The item is. objects don't have proficiency bonuses. The only things the user does is take the action and maintain concentration if required.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Spell attacks and save DCs are not part of spell effects. The spell's effects are listed under the spell descriptions.

If the spell effect lists "make a save or" then it uses the rule that tells you how to calculate the save DC. Which includes the proficiency bonus. If the SSI used a different formula it would list that alterative formula in the text of the ability.

Furthermore the users proficiency wouldn't be added regardless because they aren't producing the effects in question. The item is. objects don't have proficiency bonuses. The only things the user does is take the action and maintain concentration if required.

Now you are just making up rules. There are no rules that say an object can't have a proficiency bonus, and at least one class of objects - artillerist turrets - definitely does have a proficiency bonus.

If you, as DM, think the SSI is overpowered, then you are free to nerf the AB and save DCs as much as you like (I expect your players will just use it for spells that don't have saves instead) but RAW, that is not what the text says.

 

[Stoutstien]

If the spell effect lists "make a save or" then it uses the rule that tells you how to calculate the save DC. Which includes the proficiency bonus. If the SSI used a different formula it would list that alterative formula in the text of the ability.

Now you are just making up rules. There are no rules that say an object can't have a proficiency bonus, and at least one class of objects - artillerist turrets - definitely does have a proficiency bonus.

If you, as DM, think the SSI is overpowered, then you are free to nerf the AB and save DCs as much as you like (I expect your players will just use it for spells that don't have saves instead) but RAW, that is not what the text says.

I am the DM lol. I have personally made the call to allow the SSI to use artificer's save and attack spell numbers but it's not RAW.

The eldritch cannon doesn't have a prof bonus. Not sure why you would think it does. It's a magical object And It's stats and saves are giving in flat values and each Cannon's effect is activated by the artillerist and doubles down with calling out spell attack or save DC if applicable
Flame-..... against your spell save DC.

Force ballista- make a ranged spell attack, originating.....

Protector- 1d8 + your intelligence modifier.....

I'm not making any rule up about proficiency bonuses. Object don't have proficiencies so they can't have any bonuses. I am unaware of any exceptions to this. Even sentient items have no proficiencies. They use set DCs like With any other object.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not possible. Using a scroll still counts as casting the spell so the normal rules for spell per round limitations apply.

Just a nit-picky point, but to clarify this is not quite accurate. The limit is per turn, not per round.

 

[Stoutstien]

Just a nit-picky point, but to clarify this is not quite accurate. The limit is per turn, not per round.

Fair. I couldn't remember how reaction spell during your own turn interacts. Far as I know they are good to use with normal spells but not bonus actions per usual.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fair. I couldn't remember how reaction spell during your own turn interacts. Far as I know they are good to use with normal spells but not bonus actions per usual.

Yeah, its a minor distinction, but an important one IMO.

If you use a bonus action to cast a spell (either its normal casting time or via a feature somehow), IMO you would be limited to a cantrip. But in the discussion of using a shield scroll (in hand) as a reaction, that would be on some other turn and not impact the limit of spells cast on your turn.

 

[Guest User]

Not possible. Using a scroll still counts as casting the spell so the normal rules for spell per round limitations apply.

Where in Carmen, San Diego does it state that? The Cast the Spell action is what I determined was the trigger of the 'only Cantrips are allowed after casting a spell' regulation.

Using a spell scroll is still an Activate Object action...the specific rules for Spell Scrolls just overrides the action used for this to match the casting time of the spell.

While one could interpret using an item to cast a spell is both a use an Object Activation and Casting a Spell action combined. The rules do not explicitly spell that out, (to my knowledge).

If indeed this is the interpretation a table takes, then shouldn't such an assumption also apply to an SSI? Thus you shouldn't be able to use an SSI and cast a non Cantrip Bonus Action spell?

I like 5e, but I would love a re-write of the rules. Clarity was sacrificed on the purple stone altar dedicated to the Elder Elemental Eye, in this edition. I don't want a return to Pathfinder or 3e style rules straightjackets...but 6 years in "rulings not rules" isn't aging well.
(Especially as there are a lot of damned rules in 5e.)

 

[Stoutstien]

Where in Carmen, San Diego does it state that? The Cast the Spell action is what I determined was the trigger of the 'only Cantrips are allowed after casting a spell' regulation.

Using a spell scroll is still an Activate Object action...the specific rules for Spell Scrolls just overrides the action used for this to match the casting time of the spell.

While one could interpret using an item to cast a spell is both a use an Object Activation and Casting a Spell action combined. The rules do not explicitly spell that out, (to my knowledge).

If indeed this is the interpretation a table takes, then shouldn't such an assumption also apply to an SSI? Thus you shouldn't be able to use an SSI and cast a non Cantrip Bonus Action spell?

I like 5e, but I would love a re-write of the rules. Clarity was sacrificed on the purple stone altar dedicated to the Elder Elemental Eye, in this edition. I don't want a return to Pathfinder or 3e style rules straightjackets...but 6 years in "rulings not rules" isn't aging well.

interacting with an object and interacting with a magical object are two different mechanics. interacting with the magical object falls under the activate magic object action that is listed in the DMG at the beginning of the magic item section I forget what exact page I'll update when I get back home.

they double down on this rule with the text of spell scrolls which use the exact language to further verify that using them is considered spell casting.

In regards to the spell storing item, that is why it's so important that it is reiterated that in no way is it considered a magical item nor is it spell casting in any shape or form.
* unless for some reason the artificer themselves wanted to put it in a magical item which hamstrings some of its potential.maybe a artillerist who wants to double up on hand space.

 

[tetrasodium]

What an individual DM does or doesn't do isn't grounds for objectively viewing a player option. I could make a fighter pass a dex check between each attack to see if they can redirect those 2-9 blows effectively in the fraction of seconds they take place for the sake on some arbitrary grounds of realism or historical reasoning or add additional penalties for perception for anyone with a helm on but dnd is a poor simulator for such a granular approach and the rules aren't set up for it.

We can't say some of the artificer's features are bad because some DMs add layers of rules and exceptions. They have to be taken at face value. From there a player/DM/table can evaluate it in the parameters of that given group. The is especially true for a class that specializes in operating in the fringes of each pillar.

The same applies in reverse & that is the core of most of my points in this thread. People are arguing that every time there is an omission it must be in favor of the players and the very idea that suggesting loose wording of abilities & systems or precedent could lead a gm to ruling in ways that result in some of the artificer abilities when read as written are stupendously bad. Take the it says produce an effect not cast so there is no component cost by design argument.. 5e tried to move from the more mechanical/technical writing of past editions that would have a glossary defining "produce" if it were meaningfully different to that degree, but because they are trying for "natural language" the words produce an effect mean whatever the heck your gm deems and "it's just like casting" is an extremely reasonable way to interpret it as it avoids all the "what about pb or spell attacks & such" debate that came later. We can't judge RAW of a class based on all kinds of things not in it.