PsyzhranV2
Hero
I looked and couldn't find a statement from WotC to that effect. Anything that suggested as such was just speculation from either Morrus or one of the users here.
D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?
I have a few concerns with some of the comments.
For the record, sage advice is the official ruling when it appears. Tweets are not.
Errata is the editing of unclear, incomplete, or incorrect information. Older copies that predate the errata are not the official RAW -- they are outdated and that's why the errata exists and is readily available.
Nothing in Unearthed Arcana is RAW or official. It's unofficial playtest material. UA articles have no relevance to official rulings or gameplay.
My concern is that those facts were being disputed. A DM at a table can ignore or change any of that but that does not change what's official and what's not.
My understanding is the errata regarding spell scrolls was because spells with longer casting times than an action could be cast with an action using the wording pre-errata. Needing a scroll in hand to cast as a reaction for certain spells is not a big deal compared to casting low level spells with longer casting times on an action after using downtime to scribe scrolls. Page 141 of the DMG pre-errata confirms that items allowing the user to cast a spell use the spell's normal casting time. The action to use a scroll was for non-spell scrolls (scrolls of protection) and the errata for page 200 clarifies this the way it was intended. This isn't something to debate as not official or RAW because errata is both.
The SSI uses the "use an object" action which has significant ramifications and is not limited in the same way as the "cast a spell" action, and it does not use "activating an item" rules because the rules for the SSI are specified under that feature. That's one of the reasons it's such a good feature.
The feature states the creature takes an action to produce the effect and the creature concentrates on the effect if concentration is required. It's not a wand, or staff, or scroll, but those DC's listed in the DMG are based on the proficiency bonus and caster ability score expected to be able to cast the spell in those calculations. That's why a 9th-level spell scroll uses a 19 DC or +11 attack bonus, and why staves are similar in the DC to spell casters casting the spells. The only difference is the SSI specifies using artificer's INT modifier; nothing else in the DC formula changes. Even the ring of spell storing uses the original caster's proficiency in calculating a spell's attack bonus or save DC (even if the SSI isn't a ring a spell storing it demonstrates the consistency of how these mechanics have been with items).
The only change to the DC / attack formula listed is using the artificer's INT bonus.
@Zardnaar The artificer doesn't suck. Even the alchemist that people like point to does well (the only issue it has is it uses resources faster than other subclasses).
Having less spell slots than a full caster isn't too much of an issue. Half progression isn't the same thing as having half the slots (depending on level it's usually about 2/3's to 3/4's number of slots). It's the later access to higher level spells or no access to the highest level spells that makes the real difference. For example, the SSI at 11th level gives the base class 10 spells slots of 1st thru 3rd-levels and 10 spell uses of 1st or 2nd level before subclass abilities. A bard (you mentioned these are better in your experience) has 16 slots total at that level. A lot of lower level magic instead of a little higher level magic is where the artificer's at.
Spell slots look like this:
An alchemist adds 3 free elixirs, 5 lesser restorations, and a greater restoration / heal to the mix as what's considered a weak artificer. The first 2 levels are barely different. The second tier there's some gap but cantrips are an option and infusions are long lasting. The SSI makes up the difference in the 3rd and 4th tiers.
Spells known vs prepped looks like this:
There's no lack in the spells prepped vs the spells known and the artificer has the luxury of swapping out situational spells because of the preparation mechanic. Getting back to the alchemist, add 6 1st-level equivalents in the elixirs and no need to prep lesser restoration later. The number of infusions is gravy on top.
The reusability of the cannons or defender give those subclasses long term ability, and the arcane armor adds even more infusions and higher attunement capacity.
Bards gain expertise in 4 skills. Artificers gain expertise in tools.
Bards have inspiration. Artificers gain flash of genius.
What's more, artificers have good armor class bards do not, better at will damage, and better saving throw proficiencies (CON and INT vs DEX and CHA). And they are better at creating magic items in campaigns utilizing the system.
Bards get less magic use but more powerful spell access and more uses of inspiration over flash of genius, but artificer get more magic use overall and are more durable. They don't suck.
Sage Advice Compendium said:
For the record, sage advice is the official ruling when it appears. Tweets are not.
Errata is the editing of unclear, incomplete, or incorrect information. Older copies that predate the errata are not the official RAW -- they are outdated and that's why the errata exists and is readily available.
Nothing in Unearthed Arcana is RAW or official. It's unofficial playtest material. UA articles have no relevance to official rulings or gameplay.
My concern is that those facts were being disputed. A DM at a table can ignore or change any of that but that does not change what's official and what's not.
My understanding is the errata regarding spell scrolls was because spells with longer casting times than an action could be cast with an action using the wording pre-errata. Needing a scroll in hand to cast as a reaction for certain spells is not a big deal compared to casting low level spells with longer casting times on an action after using downtime to scribe scrolls. Page 141 of the DMG pre-errata confirms that items allowing the user to cast a spell use the spell's normal casting time. The action to use a scroll was for non-spell scrolls (scrolls of protection) and the errata for page 200 clarifies this the way it was intended. This isn't something to debate as not official or RAW because errata is both.
Spell-Storing Item said:
The SSI uses the "use an object" action which has significant ramifications and is not limited in the same way as the "cast a spell" action, and it does not use "activating an item" rules because the rules for the SSI are specified under that feature. That's one of the reasons it's such a good feature.
The feature states the creature takes an action to produce the effect and the creature concentrates on the effect if concentration is required. It's not a wand, or staff, or scroll, but those DC's listed in the DMG are based on the proficiency bonus and caster ability score expected to be able to cast the spell in those calculations. That's why a 9th-level spell scroll uses a 19 DC or +11 attack bonus, and why staves are similar in the DC to spell casters casting the spells. The only difference is the SSI specifies using artificer's INT modifier; nothing else in the DC formula changes. Even the ring of spell storing uses the original caster's proficiency in calculating a spell's attack bonus or save DC (even if the SSI isn't a ring a spell storing it demonstrates the consistency of how these mechanics have been with items).
The only change to the DC / attack formula listed is using the artificer's INT bonus.
@Zardnaar The artificer doesn't suck. Even the alchemist that people like point to does well (the only issue it has is it uses resources faster than other subclasses).
Having less spell slots than a full caster isn't too much of an issue. Half progression isn't the same thing as having half the slots (depending on level it's usually about 2/3's to 3/4's number of slots). It's the later access to higher level spells or no access to the highest level spells that makes the real difference. For example, the SSI at 11th level gives the base class 10 spells slots of 1st thru 3rd-levels and 10 spell uses of 1st or 2nd level before subclass abilities. A bard (you mentioned these are better in your experience) has 16 slots total at that level. A lot of lower level magic instead of a little higher level magic is where the artificer's at.
Spell slots look like this:
Level | Artificer (with SSI) | Bard |
1 | 2 | 2 |
2 | 2 | 3 |
3 | 3 | 6 |
4 | 3 | 7 |
5 | 6 | 9 |
6 | 6 | 10 |
7 | 7 | 11 |
8 | 7 | 12 |
9 | 9 | 14 |
10 | 9 | 15 |
11 | 10 (20) | 16 |
12 | 10 (20) | 16 |
13 | 11 (21) | 17 |
14 | 11 (21) | 17 |
15 | 12 (22) | 18 |
16 | 12 (22) | 18 |
17 | 14 (24) | 19 |
18 | 14 (24) | 20 |
19 | 15 (25) | 21 |
20 | 15 (25) | 22 |
An alchemist adds 3 free elixirs, 5 lesser restorations, and a greater restoration / heal to the mix as what's considered a weak artificer. The first 2 levels are barely different. The second tier there's some gap but cantrips are an option and infusions are long lasting. The SSI makes up the difference in the 3rd and 4th tiers.
Spells known vs prepped looks like this:
Level | Artificer (with SSI) | Bard (lore) |
1 | 4 | 4 |
2 | 4 | 5 |
3 | 6 | 6 |
4 | 8 | 7 |
5 | 10 | 8 (10) |
6 | 11 | 9 (11) |
7 | 11 | 10 (12) |
8 | 13 | 11 (13) |
9 | 15 | 12 (14) |
10 | 16 | 14 (16) |
11 | 16 (17) | 15 (17) |
12 | 17 (18) | 15 (17) |
13 | 19 (20) | 16 (18) |
14 | 20 (21) | 18 (20) |
15 | 20 (21) | 19 (21) |
16 | 21 (22) | 19 (21) |
17 | 23 (24) | 20 (22) |
18 | 24 (25) | 22 (24) |
19 | 24 (25) | 22 (24) |
20 | 25 (26) | 22 (24) |
There's no lack in the spells prepped vs the spells known and the artificer has the luxury of swapping out situational spells because of the preparation mechanic. Getting back to the alchemist, add 6 1st-level equivalents in the elixirs and no need to prep lesser restoration later. The number of infusions is gravy on top.
The reusability of the cannons or defender give those subclasses long term ability, and the arcane armor adds even more infusions and higher attunement capacity.
Bards gain expertise in 4 skills. Artificers gain expertise in tools.
Bards have inspiration. Artificers gain flash of genius.
What's more, artificers have good armor class bards do not, better at will damage, and better saving throw proficiencies (CON and INT vs DEX and CHA). And they are better at creating magic items in campaigns utilizing the system.
Bards get less magic use but more powerful spell access and more uses of inspiration over flash of genius, but artificer get more magic use overall and are more durable. They don't suck.
clearstream
(He, Him)
The doubt is over which proficiency bonus to use, if any, right? Is your intended implication that it should be the PB associated with the spell level, e.g. +2 for 1st-level, +3 for 2nd-level, or do you mean the PB associated with the artificer at the time they stored the spells, i.e. at least +4, or something else?
One might feel drawn toward the PB of the artificer, but then by that logic the DMG should have been focusing on the level of the caster required to create a scroll, not to cast the spell, seeing as surely a 17th-level wizard could have created a 1st-level spell scroll. The words in the DMG on that are "the level of the spell on the scroll determines the spell's saving throw DC and attack bonus".
Therefore, is it right that you are saying the effective PB should be +2 if a 1st-level spell is stored, or +3 if it's 2nd-level?
clearstream
(He, Him)
Likewise. I find the SSI rules indefensibly poor. There is no reason not to have spelt out the DC formula, or to have failed to make the intent crystal-clear regarding costly material components. Part of the point of paying for rules from the WotC design team, for me, is to procure a level of expertise, forethought, playtesting, and consistency across tables, that would be effortful - perhaps impossible - for me to achieve myself. I do also value ingenuity, but that alone is not sufficient. (Part of why I am - reluctantly - keeping away from the advanced rules project. We're far enough into 5e that I would value better rules over more rules.)
Zardnaar
Legend
Alot
Alot of that comes late in the Artificers career.
As I said if you wait to level 10+ your class basically sucks. To many of the archetypes are in that category.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
If your baseline is a broken paladin everything else sucks.
Stoutstien
lunk
I don't think you need more defined rules to get what you want out 5e as much as better explanation and better guidelines to implement the rules. It's like everytime someone brings up the lack of DC tables for ability checks it sets off the debate of what DC should be set for each action. In reality, what really needed to be included in the DMG/ DM screens is a quick reference table to see what the chances of pass/fail for any giving value. Same could be applied to the whole magic items are not assumed in the base assumption of progress. Cool. But it would be nice to know roughly what does happen if half the party has +1 weapons or whatnot.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
As far as realism goes 5e just isn't the system for it. No way to equally apply realistically limits on the classes equally so it end with a few full caster playing the game with tag a long lackies humping the gear.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Agree completely.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
I guess a big part of better explanation and guidelines does make a rule more defined IMO.
For example, crafting of magic items is very "open", which is great if that is what you want, but one project I started working on was a magic-item "recipe" book (so to say), with the process for making all the magic items in the DMG--including costs, materials, DC checks, etc.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
If you're looking for detailed rules systems but without an expansion of player-facing character build options, I would really look into more OSR material. ACKS does a lot of what you're asking, as does the soon to be released Worlds Without Number.I guess a big part of better explanation and guidelines does make a rule more defined IMO.
For example, crafting of magic items is very "open", which is great if that is what you want, but one project I started working on was a magic-item "recipe" book (so to say), with the process for making all the magic items in the DMG--including costs, materials, DC checks, etc.
Similar Threads
