D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah that's essentially the big problem I have for the class.

Level 10 big power spike.

Yeah a lot of features are great, but come later than they need to. Really, that goes for a lot of classes. Why are Wizards eating for signature spell and spell mastery until the endgame? Just give the most basic possible form of them at 11 or even sooner, and scale them up, and put something like Arcane Recovery as a bonus action 1/day at high level.

There's a vast distance between sucking and kicking ass. I'm not saying they suck, but kick ass seems a little strong. (They do kick ass at level 3 though due to the amount of temp hp they can dish out compared to enemy damage).

IME, kick ass is dead on. The extra BA damage, or BA THP, are great at low levels, arcane firearm keeps them at that level at 5, lvl 6 gets a third infusion, tier 3 they get 2 cannons and more (and much juicier) infusions, etc. I haven’t seen a level where artillerist’s, and artificers in general, don’t kick ass.

Yes, that's the part I was really wondering about.


Alchemist still seems pretty bad to me. Your not really explaining what it can do that makes it good, you are just stating it is.

I mean, I’m not too interested in debating alchemists. Debating damage focused builds is easy, everything else is less tangible and thus more table dependent.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Honestly, this is the real problem. There are just so many classes (including artificers) for which going Dex is just a net benefit compared to going Str.

The only classes for which going Str is comparable (not even superior, comparable!) are barbarian, fighter and cleric.

No. Dexterity is way overrated.
For the fighter there are situations where being slower than the archer or wizard is good.
With str you are more heavily armored early on. Even with 10 or 12 dex, medium armor + shield is at least comparable to leather armor and 16 dex (many comparisons somehow let chars start with 18 dex).
Also the opportunity cost of taking a feat for a str based char is lower than the cost for a dex based char (as armor does not suffer).
Swapping between melee and ranged is easier for the str guy, especially when no extra attack is available. Those are actually the levels where swapping between melee and ranged is most useful, as you lack magic and hp to bridge the gap.

Then str is a lot more important than dexterity to overcome obstacles and str helps you not to be tripped and grappled all the time. You can use the push action to escape a grab (push out of range, counter grab so noone can push anyone around), which only costs one of your attacks in the case of extra attack and you can retry if you fail the first time.

Dexterity is most useful for a scout or if everyone (or if you use group checks half of the group) has it, otherwise you fail surprise or sneaking anyway.As a save, most of the time it just reduces damage and nkt much more, a resource, str based chars can spend a bit more usually.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Dexterity is most useful for a scout or if everyone (or if you use group checks half of the group) has it, otherwise you fail surprise or sneaking anyway.As a save, most of the time it just reduces damage and nkt much more, a resource, str based chars can spend a bit more usually.

And yet, I never see any wizards with 14+ Str. Or sorcerers. Or rogues. Or warlocks. And very few bards, druids, monks or artificers either.

For more than half the classes, Str 14+ builds are extremely rare.

Of the remaining 5, my experience has been that clerics and rangers tend to go 50-50 Dex and Str. Then fighters (Str slightly more common than Dex, but I see a lot of duellists and swashbucklers as well). Finally, paladins and barbarians tend to favor Str over Dex.

 

[Zardnaar]

And yet, I never see any wizards with 14+ Str. Or sorcerers. Or rogues. Or warlocks. And very few bards, druids, monks or artificers either.

For more than half the classes, Str 14+ builds are extremely rare.

Of the remaining 5, my experience has been that clerics and rangers tend to go 50-50 Dex and Str. Then fighters (Str slightly more common than Dex, but I see a lot of duellists and swashbucklers as well). Finally, paladins and barbarians tend to favor Str over Dex.

Dex is better for clerics as well. Medium armor generally better than heavy.

14 dex/con 16 wisdom. For artificers replace wisdom ith intelligence.

Armorer might be an exception there.

Any artificer 10+ can melee fine if they want to as gauntlets and belts are available.

Artillerist can infuse a staff use it as a melee weapon with 19+strength cast booming blade or whatever and get it's d8 in melee combat from the look of it.

Basically pulling the same tricks with artificer as with arcane clerics, high elf cleric or any other cleric with access to wizard/sorcerer cantrips.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And yet, I never see any wizards with 14+ Str. Or sorcerers. Or rogues. Or warlocks. And very few bards, druids, monks or artificers either.

For more than half the classes, Str 14+ builds are extremely rare.

Of the remaining 5, my experience has been that clerics and rangers tend to go 50-50 Dex and Str. Then fighters (Str slightly more common than Dex, but I see a lot of duellists and swashbucklers as well). Finally, paladins and barbarians tend to favor Str over Dex.

Noone expexcts strong wizards. So you have to compare the builds of classes, where both str and dex are reasonable.
I have played a str based Goliath bard as a test and was happy.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Noone expexcts strong wizards. So you have to compare the builds of classes, where both str and dex are reasonable.

No one expects dextrous wizards either but most wizards I’ve seen have a 14 or 16 Dex. The only reason you don’t see Str 14 wizards is because Dex is better than Str for Wizards, as well as for more than half the classes.

I have played a str based Goliath bard as a test and was happy.

You played a Str bard as a test. The overwhelming majority of bards are Dex-based.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No one expects dextrous wizards either but most wizards I’ve seen have a 14 or 16 Dex. The only reason you don’t see Str 14 wizards is because Dex is better than Str for Wizards, as well as for more than half the classes.


You played a Str bard as a test. The overwhelming majority of bards are Dex-based.

Yes. But I think you are still missing the point. Str is a good stat for fronliners. At least comparable to dexterity.

General knowledge is that there are 3 major stats (Con, Dex, Wis) that determine universally useful characteristics: HP, Ini and AC and perception along with their saves. Useful for every class.
The minor ones are str, int and cha. Nit so generally useful, but not shabby either. But those usually play a big role for their respective classes.
So comparing str and dex for a wizard makes no sense. Looks like a strawman argument to me.

Edit: i never said, a str based bard is common, but they are not falling behind either.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yes. But I think you are still missing the point. Str is a good stat for fronliners. At least comparable to dexterity.

How am I missing the point? This is what I said:

Honestly, this is the real problem. There are just so many classes (including artificers) for which going Dex is just a net benefit compared to going Str.

The only classes for which going Str is comparable (not even superior, comparable!) are barbarian, fighter and cleric.

You disagreed, stating that Dex is overrated.

No. Dexterity is way overrated.

Now your position has shifted. You are now claiming that my initial position was correct, BUT now you are claiming that I never held it and that I was strawmanning.

General knowledge is that there are 3 major stats (Con, Dex, Wis) that determine universally useful characteristics: HP, Ini and AC and perception along with their saves. Useful for every class.
The minor ones are str, int and cha. Nit so generally useful, but not shabby either. But those usually play a big role for their respective classes.
So comparing str and dex for a wizard makes no sense. Looks like a strawman argument to me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How am I missing the point? This is what I said:

You disagreed, stating that Dex is overrated.

Now your position has shifted. You are now claiming that my initial position was correct, BUT now you are claiming that I never held it and that I was strawmanning.

I still think that the wizard is a bad example, but your initial position, that dex is universally useful is right.

In my opinion however str is indeed superior for the barbarian and the paladin and the cleric. The fighter is also better built for str in most groups, because someone should have some muscles.

Also a ranger, a bard and even the rogue can be built for str. A blade pact fiend warlock can also be built for str, especially if you allow multiclassing.

In my mind, only looking for high dex is too simple.

 

[Zardnaar]

I still think that the wizard is a bad example, but your initial position, that dex is universally useful is right.

In my opinion however str is indeed superior for the barbarian and the paladin and the cleric. The fighter is also better built for str in most groups, because someone should have some muscles.

Also a ranger, a bard and even the rogue can be built for str. A blade pact fiend warlock can also be built for str, especially if you allow multiclassing.

In my mind, only looking for high dex is too simple.

The only class that should be strength based is Barbarian.

Best fighter is dex based, best ranger is dex based, best cleric is wisdom based with dex as a secondary/tertiary.

Paladins can go either way probably better strength based but that's debatable as well.