D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Guest User]

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.

I appreciate the response. Wether here or on other Message Boards, your responses always seem polite, thoughtful and well composed. This fact has not gone unnoticed by me. Thank you for this.

Using a scroll to cast a spell still falls under the Cast a Spell action IMO since you are still casting a spell

Since Stoutsien and the artist formerly known as dnd4vr () are in agreement, just a brief response. Principally, I agree, and I do think the above quotes encapsulate the design intention. The counter argument I see is the books never use a different verb for "Cast".

Thus an argument could be made that "casting a spell" from a scroll is just natural language and is not referencing the more technical, Cast a Spell action. Without a design intent sidebar or other signifier or method of clarifying design intent, we are back to just each table has to make a ruling.

Which, kinda sucks...I was excited, at the prospect that I had missed a crucial segment of rules. (Cue the sad trombone sound).

Yeah, clear rules in 6E would be paramount for me. No more of this "rulings not rules" crap.

So I'm not entirely onboard with an entirely new edition, for much the same reason that I'm not super enthused for Morrus' Advanced 5e project, (sorry Morrus):
My primary group just is not interested in learning new rules right now.

This is also why 6ENow! Is stuck being a DM for a system, that doesn't really float their boat. (My apologies if this is an unintentional misrepresentation 6ENow!)

"Rulings not rules" is a fine principle to start with, but it requires designers who are willing and able to provide advice and enough guidance to make informed decisions.
The core 2e books...were actually pretty good at this...

Stoutstein on another forum had a hilarious running commentary about unclear rules as they were reading Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. At this point, ambiguous rules is either intentional, and thus a "feature", or Crawford and Perkins are unable to write clear rules.

It is all too easy to bash on Crawford...I don't aspire to be that person...but 6 years in...these types of rules questions should be "settled law"by now.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Ho but I do understand perfectly. You seem unable to understand my position that errata have been changed in the past and will continue to change. Only an official book can do what you imply. The same goes with SA. I never mentionned UA. You did. If anything, UA is even less trustworthy as this is not a probability to change, it is a certainty.

From what I get, you see unwilling of trying to understand my position and put me in a constant bad light of bad faith and stupidity. Keep your advice to yourself and stop name calling and using demeaning words/flaws against myself. This do not suit this forum.

My position has been clear from the start. Errata and SA are not good grounds to use. Only the printed material is worthy of being used.

Errata is a record of list of changes made to the official books as of the newest round of printing, made freely available exactly so that you don't have to buy the newest print round and play "spot the difference".

Is your argument seriously "no revisions ever once the first round of printing hits the presses"? If that's so, then that's incredibly obtuse.

Also D&D is hardly the only RPG to do updates to the official text without announcing a new edition, so are you asking all those RPGs to not make any updates as well? Granted, for a lot of them it's easier to do since they have digital versions that can be amended in inDesign and then uploaded on short notice, so the digital edition can be kept up to date while they wait to hear back from the printing house for progress on the new round of printing.

 

[see]

Ho but I do understand perfectly. You seem unable to understand my position that errata have been changed in the past and will continue to change. Only an official book can do what you imply. The same goes with SA. I never mentionned UA.

Someone with perfect understanding of the difference between errata and UA would not cite an example from UA -- "the alternate rest rule where with a single rest a sorcerer or whatever could change one of their spell" -- as an example of errata not being playtested. And after directly referencing a proposal that never appeared in anything other than UA, they certainly wouldn't then say that they "never mentioned UA".

 

[Helldritch]

Someone with perfect understanding of the difference between errata and UA would not cite an example from UA -- "the alternate rest rule where with a single rest a sorcerer or whatever could change one of their spell" -- as an example of errata not being playtested. And after directly referencing a proposal that never appeared in anything other than UA, they certainly wouldn't then say that they "never mentioned UA".

And that rule had been officially announced as being part of TCoE. That was not UA. That was Tasha, an official book. The change occured before going to print.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

And that rule had been officially announced as being part of TCoE. That was not UA. That was Tasha, an official book. The change occured before going to print.

Where did they say that?

 

[Stoutstien]

I appreciate the response. Wether here or on other Message Boards, your responses always seem polite, thoughtful and well composed. This fact has not gone unnoticed by me. Thank you for this.

Since Stoutsien and the artist formerly known as dnd4vr () are in agreement, just a brief response. Principally, I agree, and I do think the above quotes encapsulate the design intention. The counter argument I see is the books never use a different verb for "Cast".

Thus an argument could be made that "casting a spell" from a scroll is just natural language and is not referencing the more technical, Cast a Spell action. Without a design intent sidebar or other signifier or method of clarifying design intent, we are back to just each table has to make a ruling.

Which, kinda sucks...I was excited, at the prospect that I had missed a crucial segment of rules. (Cue the sad trombone sound).

So I'm not entirely onboard with an entirely new edition, for much the same reason that I'm not super enthused for Morrus' Advanced 5e project, (sorry Morrus):
My primary group just is not interested in learning new rules right now.

This is also why 6ENow! Is stuck being a DM for a system, that doesn't really float their boat. (My apologies if this is an unintentional misrepresentation 6ENow!)

"Rulings not rules" is a fine principle to start with, but it requires designers who are willing and able to provide advice and enough guidance to make informed decisions.
The core 2e books...were actually pretty good at this...

Stoutstein on another forum had a hilarious running commentary about unclear rules as they were reading Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. At this point, ambiguous rules is either intentional, and thus a "feature", or Crawford and Perkins are unable to write clear rules.

It is all too easy to bash on Crawford...I don't aspire to be that person...but 6 years in...these types of rules questions should be "settled law"by now.

I'm personally a big fan of a the new split of fluff/crunch they seem to be shooting for with content ERFLW and newer and I have my theory on why they are making this shift but that's a whole different conversation.

Some players are not fans of built in DM descension with class features but 5e has always had it and has just moved from trying to hide it to owning it and redirect that energy into hopefully more useable game tools. The best player options were starting to get too crunchy and dialed into preset paths and action cycles. It's why while I happily steal stuff from 3.5 and 4e, I would never run those systems.

So as much as I enjoy looking in on the fine points of RaW and strange corner cases of unintentional feature interactions the fact the artificer is subject to a little DM discretion is a good sign. It maintains one of the better opportunity cost decision mechanics with infusions and it interacts with the game deeper than a few d20 rolls and it succeeded where the ranger failed. It blurs the lines between the pillars.

 

[Helldritch]

Where did they say that?

Go check the thread on Tasha's a few month's back.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I hate to be nitpicky, but "some" is defined as "an unspecified number or amount of people or things".
One is a number, so therefore it fits into the definition of "some".

LOL, well one is one, a couple is two, a few is three, and "some" is generally thought of as 4 or more of something.

But, it's a minor point and not worth debating IMO. Cheers.

 

[Guest User]

I'm personally a big fan of a the new split of fluff/crunch they seem to be shooting for with content ERFLW and newer

Actually couldn't agree more. I like 5e Eberron much more than 3e. Keith Baker's Exploring Eberron is a great example of how to keep existing rules, but breath life and give great guidance on how to make the world belong to the table and personalize It.

I would love to see more of that from WoTC. Hopefully we will. A module full of tales of mystery, is a good indication that renewed focus on creativity might be on the horizon.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So I'm not entirely onboard with an entirely new edition, for much the same reason that I'm not super enthused for Morrus' Advanced 5e project, (sorry Morrus):
My primary group just is not interested in learning new rules right now.

This is also why 6ENow! Is stuck being a DM for a system, that doesn't really float their boat. (My apologies if this is an unintentional misrepresentation 6ENow!)

"Rulings not rules" is a fine principle to start with, but it requires designers who are willing and able to provide advice and enough guidance to make informed decisions.
The core 2e books...were actually pretty good at this...

I'm not thrilled about spending money on a new edition, either, BUT if it gives me what I am looking for--the money will be theirs in a heartbeat!

Mentioning A5E brings up a good point... I don't want more options, I want more defined rules! I don't need more classes, more feats, more races, more options---there are MORE than enough in 5E already IMO! But, clearly defined rules for things that also are realistic and applicable would be great. For example, STR and encumbrance. Since STR in 5E is not just about raw might, but the ability to apply the strength you have effectively, but having a 35-lb. gnome with STR 20 who can haul around 300 lbs without difficulty is ludicrous in the extreme! Even using the "variant" option, the gnome could carry 100 lbs (nearly 3x their weight!) all day long...

Part of the issue is also the type of game I want to play now. It is not a "superhero" game or "demi-god" game. Those are possible, certainly with 5E, but not my thing. Simplicity is a great thing, but 5E takes it too far in many areas IMO.

So, yes, right now I am running Frostmaiden because one of the players bought it and asked me to. It's a decent adventure, but we're still using 5E. I've gone back and forth on SO many house-rules it is ridiculous and frustrating trying to make the game something I really want to play.

And yes, 2E (building on what 1E had done right and trying to fix the things it did wrong LOL) was very good at this. Of course, there was still room for improvement, but over all it was pretty decent. Where they went wrong in 2E (for me, anyway) was with all the splat books and options and everything that eventually came about. With Tasha's, this is that point in 5E again for me. shrug