D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Cap'n Kobold]

You misrepresent a few things

Which things?

but the AL rules are only one of the four published sources I included. The other three were the DMG, XgE, & PHB.

I thought you were mostly talking about the AL rules because they are the only set where the ability to choose magic items (albeit from a rather limited selection) was guaranteed.

The other sources were help for the DM if they decide to make magic items available for trade. I didn't engage with that for the same reasons that I didn't engage with the comments based on the DM introducing modern firearms into the campaign.

 

[Zardnaar]

This video shows 2 interesting builds that don't seem weak to me...

I think I've seen that one.

They rate classes into the mid levels Treantmonk and myself weight the earlier levels higher.

Level 10 (9 for some subclasses) things start coming togather for the artificer.

That's level 10 though.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think I've seen that one.

They rate classes into the mid levels Treantmonk and myself weight the earlier levels higher.

Level 10 (9 for some subclasses) things start coming togather for the artificer.

That's level 10 though.

But they don't suck at the earlier levels, either. They start getting really good at the middle levels (level 9-10ish), but they're still good before that. Infusions are great, most of the subclasses are great, Flash of Genius is a life-saver, and your tools can make you be really good in a campaign where you a) don't have a rogue for Thieves' Tools, and/or b) have a lot of downtime and a decent amount of resources to craft items (including magic items).

Yes, they get amazing features at level 10+, but that doesn't make the class bad. Paladins aren't bad because they get great auras and overall get amazing capstone features from their subclasses. Bards don't suck because Magical Secrets comes at level 10+. Rogues don't suck because Reliable Talent comes at level 11, and Full-Casters don't suck because their higher level spells are overall more effective than your lower level ones.

This just doesn't seem like a valid criticism to me. Yes, they get really good features at later levels (Spell-Storing Item, better infusions, Soul of Artifice, Magic Item Savant, great Subclass features, etc), but they also have good features at lower levels.

 

[tetrasodium]

Which things?

Like going from talking about people playing up being able to choose a particular weapon rather than whatever the module happens to have to some absurd monty haul extreme even though some have tried to make it out as such.

I thought you were mostly talking about the AL rules because they are the only set where the ability to choose magic items (albeit from a rather limited selection) was guaranteed.

No the AL stuff only on that dmg page for inclusiveness, the dmg & xge costs/sidebar against PHB armor prices are more than enough to make "but players need to find stuff" arguments ring hollow. For all of the talk wotc makes about magic items being optional & not needed they go to great lengths making sure there is a very low burden to obtaining them & GMs are strongly encouraged to be "generous" with them. It's also a bit disingenuous for people to compare the infusions artificers actually have listed to gear towards the legendary end of the spectrum

The other sources were help for the DM if they decide to make magic items available for trade. I didn't engage with that for the same reasons that I didn't engage with the comments based on the DM introducing modern firearms into the campaign.

If a player wants to play an artificer in a campaign where the GM runs a module as written, awards loot as written, does not allow players to purchase magic items, & chooses not to follow the XgE advice to be "generous" that gm should say "no artificer". The solution is not to design the artificer for a spherical cow that does not match the game design & advice wotc has published involving magic items.

 

[Zardnaar]

But they don't suck at the earlier levels, either. They start getting really good at the middle levels (level 9-10ish), but they're still good before that. Infusions are great, most of the subclasses are great, Flash of Genius is a life-saver, and your tools can make you be really good in a campaign where you a) don't have a rogue for Thieves' Tools, and/or b) have a lot of downtime and a decent amount of resources to craft items (including magic items).

Yes, they get amazing features at level 10+, but that doesn't make the class bad. Paladins aren't bad because they get great auras and overall get amazing capstone features from their subclasses. Bards don't suck because Magical Secrets comes at level 10+. Rogues don't suck because Reliable Talent comes at level 11, and Full-Casters don't suck because their higher level spells are overall more effective than your lower level ones.

This just doesn't seem like a valid criticism to me. Yes, they get really good features at later levels (Spell-Storing Item, better infusions, Soul of Artifice, Magic Item Savant, great Subclass features, etc), but they also have good features at lower levels.

They tend to be worse than the other half casters at dealing damage though. And get a d8 hit dice.

Paladins and Rangers run rings around them. They miss a combat style as well.

They're not as good at utility as say a rogue.

One can cherry pick some levels eg 5 but overall they have issues.

Then they hit level 10 can get an extra infusion, +2 weapons and armor and gauntlets of ogre power. Throw in cantrips and even alchemist is doing ok at damage level 10.

 

[Stoutstien]

They tend to be worse than the other half casters at dealing damage though. And get a d8 hit dice.

Paladins and Rangers run rings around them. They miss a combat style as well.

They're not as good at utility as say a rogue.

One can cherry pick some levels eg 5 but overall they have issues.

Then they hit level 10 can get an extra infusion, +2 weapons and armor and gauntlets of ogre power. Throw in cantrips and even alchemist is doing ok at damage level 10.

Eh. The damage difference between ranger, paladin, and artificer is margin of error small. Definitely not being lapped. They can take the same damage feats (cheaper for them actually thanks to SaDness) and if they go battlesmith and the difference be becomes solely based on how far into the adventuring day they are. Alternatively they can give an infusion to a paladin/ranger who did spend every opportunity cost on damage via PaM + duelist + smite/HM happy and they could rack up some damage riding of their dime. Ever miss that +1 turns into a hit would or should be credited to artificer. Couple that with the damage boost and the artificer's own action they aren't struggling for DPR.

HP difference is noticable at first level but after that it's 1 hp per level. I know plenty of players who would gladly trade away a HD size for a few cantrips.

Their utility is based on how clever the player is so I could see some issues there for those who like the button to hit approach. They favor planning over reacting so it's a different play style.

No idea why It double quote.

 

[Zardnaar]

Eh. The damage difference between ranger, paladin, and artificer is margin of error small. Definitely not being lapped. They can take the same damage feats (cheaper for them actually thanks to SaDness) and if they go battlesmith and the difference be becomes solely based on how far into the adventuring day they are. Alternatively they can give an infusion to a paladin/ranger who did spend every opportunity cost on damage via PaM + duelist + smite/HM happy and they could rack up some damage riding of their dime. Ever miss that +1 turns into a hit would or should be credited to artificer. Couple that with the damage boost and the artificer's own action they aren't struggling for DPR.

HP difference is noticable at first level but after that it's 1 hp per level. I know plenty of players who would gladly trade away a HD size for a few cantrips.

Their utility is based on how clever the player is so I could see some issues there for those who like the button to hit approach. They favor planning over reacting so it's a different play style.

No idea why It double quote.

One can compare the best artificer (battlesmith) to a so so ranger build (hunter) and yeah the ranger is stomping it for damage.

Throw in something like gloomstalker and yeah the battlesmith is losing that one.

And the battlesmith is the best one. Throw in sharpshooter it's a blowout.

I won't mention Paladins.

Artificer doesn't get archery style, the armorer can't enchant it's special weapon to 9 (from the look of it) and they only deal d6 anyway.

Battlesmith pet dies (seem it happen more than once) damage falls off a cliff. Also compares poorly to say a cleric who is also a primary caster. Battlesmith also sucks at range.

And that's the best one the one I admit is actually not bad or even good.

Level 9/10+ yeah sure most of my complaints go away. You can build a good tank how useful said tank is varies.

 

[Ashrym]

They tend to be worse than the other half casters at dealing damage though. And get a d8 hit dice.

Paladins and Rangers run rings around them. They miss a combat style as well.

They're not as good at utility as say a rogue.

One can cherry pick some levels eg 5 but overall they have issues.

Then they hit level 10 can get an extra infusion, +2 weapons and armor and gauntlets of ogre power. Throw in cantrips and even alchemist is doing ok at damage level 10.

My alchemist did fine at level 3. He could burn a 1st level spell slot to cast a limited version of fly that did not require concentration. It's good for obstacle challenges and a defensive move in some combat encounters, and something other casters need to give up concentrating on another spell to accomplish.

My alchemist could use flying elixirs with faerie fire and a crossbow at that level. Granting advantage early from a safe distance (when the conditions were applicable) wasn't exactly a weak choice to support the party. That spell was just effective for my character as it would have been for the typical bard or druid.

The only issue with alchemists is the extra versatility the elixirs offer burns resources faster than other subclass options.

A person doesn't make a strong argument by pointing at what another class has while ignoring what that class also lacks in comparison. Paladins and rangers might have a combat style but artificers have cantrips, ritual casting, and infusions that paladins and rangers do not. It's not like paladins and rangers can hand out mind sharpener or spell-refueling ring infusions.

Most classes use d8 as the standard, and the difference the die makes is small until the higher levels you are choosing to dismiss. ;-)

Artificers are strong in skill checks because of tool expertise, flash of genius, and various infusions that can help with checks. Infusions can be changed daily like prepped spells. Replicating useful infusions like cap of water breathing or goggles of night vision at 2nd level is granting permanent abilities that it would take a full caster until 3rd level for darkvision or 5th level for waterbreathing let alone the ranger comparison who needs to be 5th level for darkvision and 9th level for waterbreathing.

Magic items can replicate spell effects without costing spell slots. Infusions can grant these spell effects earlier than the spell casters can even cast the spells. There's a lot of utility there, and it starts as early as 2nd level.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Like going from talking about people playing up being able to choose a particular weapon rather than whatever the module happens to have to some absurd monty haul extreme even though some have tried to make it out as such.

Let us refresh your understanding of that conversation:

This means you have to have a dedicated hand to weilding either tools, or a nonmagical version of an item you have to soup up to end up on a net disadvantage (not -that "disadvantage"-) compared to the items other classes are getting for free as part of their loot from adventuring

So: We are talking about the situation where the rest of the party have all acquired better weapons than the infusions that you have available.
This does not just mean that the other players have exactly the right weapons for their builds, due to either DM favour or being in the lucky few tenths of a percent of parties. By the time a party has hit level 10, it will have probably found only two or three magic weapons. That might be one for each weapon-user, with no guarantees that it will be as good as an infusion weapon.

No the AL stuff only on that dmg page for inclusiveness, the dmg & xge costs/sidebar against PHB armor prices are more than enough to make "but players need to find stuff" arguments ring hollow.

No, I'm not seeing that. Cost and availability are two different factors. Just because the DM is given the option of allowing magic items for trade, it doesn't mean that they are expected to, whereas the mundane items listed in the player's handbook have a higher expectation of being available.
DMs are expected to lace their adventures with magic items, or at least roll for them when the players find a hoard of loot. However, that is not the same as DM's allowing completely free choice of items available to buy. Even if you assume that the party can only afford to buy the same number of items that they would otherwise have found randomly, the sheer fact that they get to choose exactly what they want makes them much better.
A party that has distributed randomly-found items on the basis of "fair share" or "best fit" is generally going to be nowhere near as powerful as one which got to pick the exact thing that they want.

For all of the talk wotc makes about magic items being optional & not needed they go to great lengths making sure there is a very low burden to obtaining them & GMs are strongly encouraged to be "generous" with them. It's also a bit disingenuous for people to compare the infusions artificers actually have listed to gear towards the legendary end of the spectrum

Even at max tier when legendary items may become a factor, bags of holding, goggles of night etc are still useful. The Artificer has those and the legendary item, can use anything they want, and has more that need attunement than the rest of the group.

The other sources were help for the DM if they decide to make magic items available for trade.

If a player wants to play an artificer in a campaign where the GM runs a module as written, awards loot as written, does not allow players to purchase magic items, & chooses not to follow the XgE advice to be "generous" that gm should say "no artificer". The solution is not to design the artificer for a spherical cow that does not match the game design & advice wotc has published involving magic items.

Do you believe that
"runs a module as written, awards loot as written, does not allow players to purchase magic items, & chooses not to follow the XgE advice to be "generous"
has the same meaning as
"does not allow players to purchase magic items"?

 

[Ashrym]

One can compare the best artificer (battlesmith) to a so so ranger build (hunter) and yeah the ranger is stomping it for damage.

Throw in something like gloomstalker and yeah the battlesmith is losing that one.

And the battlesmith is the best one. Throw in sharpshooter it's a blowout.

I won't mention Paladins.

Artificer doesn't get archery style, the armorer can't enchant it's special weapon to 9 (from the look of it) and they only deal d6 anyway.

Battlesmith pet dies (seem it happen more than once) damage falls off a cliff. Also compares poorly to say a cleric who is also a primary caster. Battlesmith also sucks at range.

And that's the best one the one I admit is actually not bad or even good.

Level 9/10+ yeah sure most of my complaints go away. You can build a good tank how useful said tank is varies.

The problem with that assessment and all you show is damage, ignoring the versatility artificers have over these classes. Indeed, when versatility was mentioned you switched gears and mentioned rogues and that isn't relevant to a artificer vs paladin or ranger discussion. ;-)