D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Ridiculous Dumb Idea
Armorer Artificer with the Tavern Brawler feat.
Hang a hundred gauntlets from your armor.
Turn them all into Thunder Gauntlets.
Throw them at people!
Name yourself Cottus, Briareus, or Gyges.

That's not how that works. However, you could combine Arcane Propulsion Armor with Thunder Gauntlets (and imbue the Gauntlets with Radiant/Enhanced Weapon, too).

 

[Iry]

That's not how that works.

It's obviously a joke combination, but there's no reason why it wouldn't work beyond DM fiat.
Wander around and challenge people to duels. Throws a gauntlet!

 

[JackalTornMoons]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but have you looked at the twilight cleric? They make that turret look like chump change. 1d6+level in a 30 foot radius, every round, no action or concentration required.

Twilight Sanctuary is definitely super strong also, although it does last only a minute and is limited by Channel Divinity uses. Protector turret can you help in out of combat situations also.

 

[Guest User]

I remember pointing out to my players that the cannon of the artillerist is immune to most spell effects because it's an object and not a creature

That is actually one area of the rules in general that I think fails from a simulation perspective. An Eldritch Canon can literally look a xenomorph "Face Hugger" from the Aliens movies, and move independently from an Artillerist...but for some gamist reason one can't target one with an Acid Splash?

In regards to Twilight clerics, based off memory, every D&D edition that has 'speciality priests' has had an overpowered 'Twilight Cleric'.

Both the Twilight and Peace Clerics in 5e are extremely overturned.

A Twilight Cleric gets Heavy Armor, Martial Weapons, shareable 300' Darkvision,
and Advantage on Initiative checks, and access to Cleric Spells all from a single level dip. The Domain Spell list for the Twilight Cleric is extremely good.

Twilight Sanctuary doesn't require Concentration, yet Invoke Duplicity does.
Twilight Sanctuary combines the best aspects of Aura of Vitality, and Calm Emotions, and one can combine this Channel Divinity power simultaneously with Spirit Guardians!

(This combo is a fairly close analog to having 3 Concentration spells up at once)

A Twilight Cleric has a big red "S" under their armor! Compared to the Twilight cleric, every other cleric domain, (outside of Peace), is the super hero equivalent of the Mcdonald's Character of Grimace.

Sorry, but the Twilight cleric is not a fair point to start a comparison, just as the Simulacrum spell is not a fair standard to hold other 7th level spells up to.

TCoE, for clerics is the quintessential exemplar of 'Power Creep'.

 

[Ancalagon]

As a point of interest, I'm seeing all sorts of "well, this class's signature ability beat Artificer". Twilight cleric can do more tHP than Artillerist, Bards can do X, Clerics can do Y.

What I'm getting out of this is that the Artificer may not be a master of any single discipline, but comes in strong enough in every category that you need to pull out the big guns for that category to beat it. Sounds like a well rounded and versatile class.

the Monk can be like this a bit. I've seen a lot of people argue than they are bad, but from DMing a game with two monks (up to level 8), and currently playing a level 4 kensei monk... they are not a bad class, at all.

 

[clearstream]

I think you're overthinking it. The artificer stores a spell in the SSI. How the creature activates that spell's effect is irrelevant. The spell effects all use a standard set of rules in chapter 10 of the PHB. Those are in effect until a specific change is given such as applying the artificer's INT as the ability modifier to use.

@cbwjm gave the same formula from the DMG regarding item use but that includes a helpful tips on what to do when the user doesn't have a casting stat, but it's moot given SSI covers the ability score.

All PC abilities use the same formulas to calculate DC's and attacks. It doesn't matter whether it's casting a spell, ki stunning an opponent, manuever disarming an opponent, or activating a spell from an item.

The only differences are it's a different action type to do it with the SSI and the default calculation from chapter 10 use the artificer INT as the caster ability score. The spell effects all use the same resolution they normally use because the SSI hasn't changed those.

On balance of the information now to hand, I believe you are right to have inferred a general rule (although it is by no means unambiguous). Factors that I find persuasive are -

1. There is reasonable agreement between how DCs are arrived at for magical items and how they are arrived at for spellcasters.
2. DMG 141 complements PHB 205 in a way that sheds more light than reading 205 alone: it is in DMG 141 that a creature producing a spell from an item uses its proficiency bonus, and not that of the original caster. That is, 141 implies who "your" will be, when it comes to casting spells out of items.
3. If one bootstraps from the inferred rule, the wording in SSI about using artificer's ability modifier becomes necessitated. Issues with the argument notwithstanding (it begs the question).
4. If true, "produces" and "casts" likely need to be taken as synonyms in RAW... which isn't great. "Object" and "item" also must be, but a "magic item" is separated out (possibly unnecessarily).

This could still turn out to be mistaken. If JC responds and his answers chime with it, then I feel like that might sustain the inference pretty well.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

On balance of the information now to hand, I believe you are right to have inferred a general rule (although it is by no means unambiguous). Factors that I find persuasive are -

1. There is reasonable agreement between how DCs are arrived at for magical items and how they are arrived at for spellcasters.
2. DMG 141 complements PHB 205 in a way that sheds more light than reading 205 alone: it is in DMG 141 that a creature producing a spell from an item uses its proficiency bonus, and not that of the original caster. That is, 141 implies who "your" will be, when it comes to casting spells out of items.
3. If one bootstraps from the inferred rule, the wording in SSI about using artificer's ability modifier becomes necessitated. Issues with the argument notwithstanding (it begs the question).
4. If true, "produces" and "casts" likely need to be taken as synonyms in RAW... which isn't great. "Object" and "item" also must be, but a "magic item" is separated out (possibly unnecessarily).

This could still turn out to be mistaken. If JC responds and his answers chime with it, then I feel like that might sustain the inference pretty well.

You are still reading the rules as if they are some kind of holy book from which some kind of deeper meaning can be inferred, and JC is the one true prophet.

There is no deeper meaning. The rules mean what they say and nothing more, they are inconsistent because the authors are fallible and made mistakes, and what you do with them is entirely up to the people playing the game.

 

[clearstream]

You are still reading the rules as if they are some kind of holy book from which some kind of deeper meaning can be inferred, and JC is the one true prophet.

There is no deeper meaning. The rules mean what they say and nothing more, they are inconsistent because the authors are fallible and made mistakes, and what you do with them is entirely up to the people playing the game.

What a strange conclusion to reach about my motives. My lense on rules is informed by game theorists such as Suits, Reiland, Kreider, Royce, Juul, and Aarseth, among others. On meaning in this specific regard, probably most by Wittgenstein, but also Quine. And on legal theory a little by Dworkin.

I take an important function of rules to be constitutive: they are followed just so that the enjoyed behaviour can exist. Without the rules of Chess for example, one cannot enjoy the experience of that game. Their meaning is - well it is a complicated matter - let's say it is a useful consensus built upon a foundation of meanings pre-existing in games, language and culture generally. If one of the people who hopes to be playing the game chooses to uphold an entirely different meaning to everyone else, then chances are they will not enjoy the game in the same way and may perhaps harm or get in the way of the enjoyment for others.

Of course authors are fallible. In fact, I find the particular ways they fail fascinating. It is interesting to encounter a paradox, ambiguity or lacuna. It is fun to do a bit of sleuthing to see if a consistent and useful meaning can be derived from what is there. In this case... probably. One can make a reasonable inference that looks pretty consistent with everything that is there. @Ashrym landed on that quickly. Initially, I couldn't see how it might be sustained, but then @cbwjm, @Stoutstien and @Ashrym again drew attention to further evidence.

As for JC, really? A true prophet?! How on Earth do you get to there from what I wrote? I guess you haven't read my posts elsewhere regarding some of his sillier rulings. As one of the key designers, what he says about intent is helpful in various ways.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What a strange conclusion to reach about my motives. My lense on rules is informed by game theorists such as Suits, Reiland, Kreider, Royce, Juul, and Aarseth, among others. On meaning in this specific regard, probably most by Wittgenstein, but also Quine. And on legal theory a little by Dworkin.

That's your explanation then. You pay too much attention to people who earn money by spouting pretentious nonsense.

I take an important function of rules to be constitutive:

I have no idea what that means, and I don't care. Jargon is a language invented to make people think "I don't understand what that person is talking about, but it sounds clever so it must be true".

they are followed just so that the enjoyed behaviour can exist. Without the rules of Chess for example, one cannot enjoy the experience of that game.

Rules are things people make up. I can draw a circle on the ground and toss the chess men into it from a distance of 3 meters. It's a game, its perfectly fun, and it has nothing to do with the rules you are talking about.

 

[Stoutstien]

That's not how that works. However, you could combine Arcane Propulsion Armor with Thunder Gauntlets (and imbue the Gauntlets with Radiant/Enhanced Weapon, too).

I like the bugbear for spring loaded thunder punch

That is actually one area of the rules in general that I think fails from a simulation perspective. An Eldritch Canon can literally look a xenomorph "Face Hugger" from the Aliens movies, and move independently from an Artillerist...but for some gamist reason one can't target one with an Acid Splash?

Same reason a wizard can't go around melting locks and doors with acid splash. The conjuration magic works on with creatures because insert magic lore here.

The cannon isn't truly independent. It doesn't even have any movement speed. You can tell it to move X as part of the commanding bonus action but at all no time does it have or utilize any type of action or feature in a way to be seen as a creature creature rather than an object.