D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Precisely this. The problem isn't the paladin or the artificer, it because their DM was foolish enough to use rolled states for their game in the first place, and then expect any sort of balancing to be possible after. Rolling stats is not balanced by design.

And letting them get Cha-based Shillelagh. Combine the Rolled Stats with that, and that's why the Artificer looks like it sucks in comparison.

 

[Ashrym]

I think we generally answered the original question that artificers do not suck. At low levels the infusions are good and at high levels the SSI is good.

 

[Blue]

It's not clear from the wording whether it could or could not be used with Fast Hands. It's frankly ambiguous, which is exacerbated by the unlovely tangle of RAW around item use.

Sage Advice compendium does help clarify that:

Which action is used to activate a Spell-Storing Item? Activating a Spell-Storing Item uses the Use an Object action.


EDIT: I see I was ninja'd above. Sorry for the repeat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The broad strokes dismissal seems to be a position of Anti-Education, as opposed to objecting to the research and lectures of one or two specific people.

As a scientist, I am very much pro-education. I am anti-psychobabble, and anyone who say anything that is not testable by experiment.

And very much anti-jargon. There is far to much of that in education. If you can't explain your meaning in a language everyone understands you need to rewrite your thesis until you can.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why the circle, why 3 meters?

First thing that popped into my head. Random and meaningless.

Would you call it joining a session of play of your game, if everyone else does something completely different?

My game is single player, it doesn't need anyone else.

 

[Iry]

As a scientist, I am very much pro-education. I am anti-psychobabble, and anyone who say anything that is not testable by experiment.

Strictly STEM then?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Strictly STEM then?

That would be jargon.

 

[Iry]

That would be jargon.

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[Stoutstien]

That would be jargon.

STEM is a acronym based colloquialism like NASA, laser, HDMI, or YMCA. Most people have no idea what they stand for but understand what they represent.
STEM is the opposite of jargon because it serves as a stand in word for fields know for technical terminologies.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

STEM is a acronym based colloquialism like NASA, laser, HDMI, or YMCA. Most people have no idea what they stand for but understand what they represent.
STEM is the opposite of jargon because it serves as a stand in word for fields know for technical terminologies.

If most people have no idea what it stands for it's jargon.

I suspect the majority of people using this site have little idea what it represents, never mind what it actually stands for. DON'T USE IT. Or, if you must use it, explain what it means.